Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Turkey

Ann Clwyd: What representations he has made to the Turkish Government on the treatment of political prisoners and human rights. [145033]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I both raise our concerns on Turkey's human rights record, including the treatment of political prisoners, in our contacts with our Turkish counterparts. We and European Union partners continue to have significant concerns about restrictions on freedom of expression, the incidence of torture and the statutory existence of the death penalty. These concerns were reflected in the accession partnership that received political agreement on 5 December. We raised our concerns about the recent prison operations in Turkey with the Turkish Foreign Minister on 11 January.

Ann Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that a group of human rights activists have just returned to the United Kingdom from Turkey and that they report massive human rights abuses, particularly among the 1,200 political prisoners who are on hunger strike, some of whom are said to be close to death? Is he also aware that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have reported the ill-treatment of prisoners, particularly the raping of prisoners with truncheons? Will he confirm that a condition of Turkey's membership of the EU must be a huge improvement in its human rights conditions.

Mr. Vaz: No Member of the House has done more to champion the rights of minorities in Turkey than my hon. Friend. She deserves the thanks of the House for the visits that she has made and the way in which she eloquently raises issues of concern. I was aware that a group had just returned to the United Kingdom following a visit to Turkey, and I look forward to receiving and reading its report.
I assure my hon. Friend that we have raised these concerns with the Turkish authorities. Yesterday, I spoke to the Turkish ambassador and I invited him to meet my hon. Friend and any other Member who wishes to see him

this week to discuss these issues. I know that they are of such concern. I assure her that Turkey will not join the EU until it, like all other applicants, has met the Copenhagen criteria in full. That criteria applied to the United Kingdom and it applies to all other applicants.
As my hon. Friend has heard today, we agreed on 5 December that human rights was one of the points to be raised in discussions with Turkey. We will continue to raise the issue when appropriate.

Mr. Christopher Gill: May we have the Minister's assurance that the British Government will not be involved in raking over the coals of what happened in Turkey nearly 100 years ago and that it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy not to recognise the Armenian massacres as genocide?

Mr. Vaz: Clearly, these issues are sensitive and cause concern. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no change of policy as far as this matter is concerned.

Middle East

Mr. Andrew Miller: If he will make a statement about the situation in the middle east. [145034]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The rate of violence in the occupied territories has reduced substantially in recent weeks, but it is still at an unacceptable level. I spoke on Sunday to the Israeli Foreign Minister on the eve of his departure to the talks in Taba. I expressed our hope that it would prove possible for agreement to be reached on a text recording the area of common ground established in the talks with former President Clinton.
At yesterday's meeting of European Foreign Ministers, we agreed to release a further tranche of funds to compensate the Palestinian budget for the withholding of tax receipts by the Israeli Government. We regretted the continuing blockade of the occupied territories, the lifting of which could rekindle confidence in the peace process.

Mr. Miller: I am sure that the whole House will welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Does he agree that peace is about compromise and that the Clinton plan, which was supported by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, offered such a compromise? It was about a painful and difficult series of choices.
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that Barak offered unprecedented concessions at that point and that it takes both sides to create peace? The rhetoric of Likud might set the process back as would those Palestinians who have lived up to Abba Eban's old doctrine that they are a people who have never missed an opportunity of missing an opportunity?

Mr. Cook: All the House would want to salute former President Clinton on the immense effort and creativity that he put into trying to find progress on the middle east peace process. I agree with my hon. Friend that the parameters set out by the former President did not offer both sides everything that they wanted. Such a settlement is impossible: a settlement will require the compromise on both sides to which my hon. Friend referred. However,


I hope both sides will not lose sight of the fact that the security of a peace agreement is far more important than any compromise that is necessary to achieve it.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the middle east continues to be one of the most dangerous and difficult political problems? As there has been a change of President in the United States, will he ensure that he and his Department get in touch with the new Administration so that we work closely with them to bring about a solution, difficult as that may be?

Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the gravity of the situation. We have always been very concerned that the difficulties within the occupied territories might give rise to greater instability within the region. I am pleased to tell the House that I am going to accept an invitation from Secretary of State Colin Powell to visit him between 5 and 7 February, and that problem will be high on my agenda.

Mr. Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and I returned just today from the occupied territories in Palestine. While there, we met President Arafat, who spoke strongly of his hopes that the 10 days of talks, which he called the intensive marathon, that are under way will bring about a settlement that is acceptable to both sides. Will my right hon. Friend do everything in his power, with the help of the United States Government, to encourage the parties to reach a just solution? Will he undertake to meet me and my hon. Friend to hear at first hand some of the atrocities that we learned about in the occupied territories, including the disproportionate use of force and questionable terms of engagement for Israel's troops, which led to the killing of a boy from Hussan school in Beit Sahour? Will he also discuses with us how we can raise the matter of the imprisonment of 53 young people who would not be in prison if Israel implemented the UN convention on the rights of the child?

Mr. Cook: I am aware that my hon. Friend has just returned from the occupied territories and I shall be pleased to hear his first-hand impressions. The United Kingdom supported the Security Council resolution that reflected our grave concern at the excessive use of force in the occupied territories. I am very glad and relieved that the violence on both sides has declined in recent weeks.
As for supporting the talks, this is the last opportunity for them to succeed in terms of the parameters set out by President Clinton. I hope that that opportunity will be seized. I know that people on both sides of the conflict have an earnest intention to try to reach an agreement. I assured Israel's Foreign Minister that we would do all that we could to support such an outcome, which is why, on Monday, we secured language at the European meeting to give Europe's backing for a settlement.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It may not be strictly necessary to mention this, but I have a registerable interest in relation to such matters, which is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests.
The Secretary of State will, of course, have the support of all hon. Members for the efforts that are being made to cause the talks to be successful, and he is right to applaud the efforts of President Clinton. However, does he agree

that unless there is recognition of the right of return, as contained in United Nations Security Council resolution 194, then the prospects for a lasting peace will be severely diminished? Is it not time that the old people who hold in their hands the crumbling deeds of their houses and the receipts that they paid for property tax, should have a hope of returning to the homes from which they were driven or expelled all those years ago?

Mr. Cook: I fully agree with the sentiment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman expresses. The right to return to a Palestinian state was set out by former President Clinton in his attempt to renew the peace process in December. I well understand the strength of feeling on that matter especially in Jordan where nearly half the population are of Palestinian origin. However, at the end of the day, the peace settlement will be a package. It is important that it offers gains to both sides, but I do not know whether it would be wise at an early stage of the talks to identify one single red line among the many elements that will need to be considered.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: My right hon. Friend is aware of the concern in all parts of the House about the plight of three Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border. Will he put pressure on the authorities in Iran, Syria and Lebanon so that at least some information may come to light about the plight of the soldiers, for their families, for the success of the peace process, and particularly for security on Israel's northern border?

Mr. Cook: I fully understand the importance of the issue to Israel generally, and specifically to the relatives of the three men. When I was in Israel on an earlier visit, I met the relatives of Ron Arad, who has been missing for well over a decade. It is impossible to overstate the distress caused to relatives by the uncertainty about what may have happened to their loved ones. I raised the matter of the three Israel Defence Force soldiers when I was on my recent tour. We continue to pursue it and to take the opportunity of every contact and every channel to try to obtain a resolution of the issue.

Mr. Francis Maude: Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that Britain, with its record of support for Israel and its long history of involvement with many Arab states, is uniquely well placed to exert influence in the middle east? Why does he think that people on all sides in the region believe that Britain is failing to live up to its historic role? Surely Britain's foreign policy should be neither a pale reflection of America's, nor simply one voice in a European Union of 15. If the right hon. Gentleman understood a little better what Britain has been, would he not understand a little better what Britain can be, and what role Britain can play in the world as a confident and independent country?

Mr. Cook: I congratulate the House on the fact that, until now, we have had a sober, non-partisan discussion of a serious issue. It is deplorable that that should be rounded off by a right hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench seeking to reduce it to a party political issue. It is far larger than any party political issue, and I do not propose to respond in the tone or the style of the


Opposition spokesman. All that he has done is to prove that the is unfit ever to hold the office of Foreign Secretary.

Greece (Hydra Bilateral Conference)

Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the recent bilateral conference with Greece in Hydra. [145035]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The first bilateral British-Greek conference, "A New Look at Relations" was held on the island of Hydra near Athens from 13 to 15 October 2000. Two Greek and two British Ministers attended, with 45 other participants, including hon. Members, officials, journalists and other opinion formers. The conference addressed issues of competitiveness, education in a knowledge-based society, and social change in the EU context. The Hydra conference was the flagship event in our bilateral relations with Greece in 2000. It was an enormous success.

Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hydra conference showed that with the PASOK Government of Mr. Simitis, Greece has made great economic progress, with stability sustained growth, falling public debt and a Budget surplus? As Greece further develops its structural changes, does my hon. Friend agree that the ties between our countries and Governments are stronger than ever, and that Greece provides an excellent opportunity for British inward investment and trade?

Mr. Vaz: I happily agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for his participation in the Hydra conference, and for the way in which he has helped build up relations between our two countries. Twelve British Ministers visited Greece last year. My hon. Friend is right when he says that the economy of Greece has improved enormously under Prime Minister Simitis. The reformist agenda put forward by the Greek Prime Minister has been extremely valuable. British exports to Greece last year were worth £1.1 billion—an increase of 7 per cent. The good relationship with Greece will continue. We are grateful for the steps that the Greek Government have taken to try and find the assassin of Brigadier Saunders. We will continue to work with the Greek Government to ensure that his killer is brought to justice.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: In connection with the murder of Brigadier Stephen Saunders, will the Minister outline the assistance that the British Government are giving the Greek Government to apprehend the murderer?

Mr. Vaz: We have responded tot every request that has been made by the Greek Government. I went over shortly after the assassination, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been there, and every Foreign Office Minister has visited Greece over the past 12 months. In the meantime, Greek Ministers, especially the Home Affairs Minister, have visited our country, asking for help—for example, on the policing aspects and the forensic examination of evidence. We are there to help, and we will continue to help in any way that we can.

Plan Colombia

Mr. Paul Goggins: When he next plans to discuss the implementation of plan Colombia with representatives of the US Government. [145036]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): We have regularly discussed developments in Colombia with the US Government and will naturally keep in close touch with the new US Administration.
The new Administration's approach on Colombia is not yet clear. At his Senate confirmation hearing on 17 January, Colin Powell said the Administration supported US aid
to help the Colombian Government protect its people, fight the illicit drug trade, halt the momentum of the guerrillas and ultimately bring about a sensible and peaceful resolution to the conflict.
We and our EU partners will continue to place particular importance upon the peace process, socioeconomic initiatives, alternative development and measures to improve human rights and protect the environment.

Mr. Goggins: Is my hon. Friend aware that 170 unarmed civilians have been murdered in Colombia since the start of the year, including 25 people from one village who were butchered last Wednesday morning by a paramilitary death squad? Is he also aware that a military strategy supported by the United States is now operating in the Putumayo region in southern Colombia? Part of the strategy includes crop spraying, which is causing major hazards to the health of local communities, and to the environment.
When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the new US Administration, will he tell them that plan Colombia in its present form is not working, and that it is making things worse, not better? Will he say that this Government will never support the plan in its present form? Will he ensure that the voice of grassroots communities in that deteriorating situation will continue to be heard, by this Government and the international community at large?

Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend for his serious and continued interest in what is happening in Colombia. We share his concerns and deeply deplore the recent murders of campasinos. Killing is undoubtedly taking place, at the hands of the FARC and the paramilitary. I stress that the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office was in Colombia last week, urging the Government there to crack down on paramilitaries and to maintain a dialogue for peace with the FARC.
We are not underpinning America's plan Colombia, but I emphasise that we are trying to support a peace process. We share my hon. Friend's concerns about what is happening in Putumayo. When I was in Colombia, I was told that areas of over 3 hectares only would be sprayed, but we know that that is not happening. We want progress on the voluntary eradication of coca crops, and on alternative economic development in local communities. There are local proposals to that effect in Magdalena Media, for example. One of the leading figures behind those proposals is the well respected Father Francisco Roux. We hope to invite him to the UK soon so that he


can let us know what is happening on the ground and to enable us to keep a close, clear and positive local perspective on developments.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: In his talks with the US Government, will the Minister make it clear that he wants a guarantee that they will not in any circumstances use the live fungus fusiparium for spraying coca crops?

Mr. Battle: Again, we have made that point before to the Governments of both Colombia and the US. We will continue to press the point. We believe that voluntary eradication of coca and the development of alternative crops are the key, so that campasinos have an economic future. That is the way to undermine the FARC's grip on the local economy, which is based on coca crops. That is what we want to happen.

Mr. Desmond Browne: One of the last presidential acts of former President Clinton was to waive the human rights condition attached by Congress to all aid under plan Colombia. Will my hon. Friend the Minister seek an early opportunity to express to the new Administration our disappointment at that decision? Will he continue to insist, to the United States and to the European Union, that respect for the fundamental standards of human rights must be a condition of all future international aid to the Colombian Government?

Mr. Battle: Again, yes; my hon. Friend's close attention to developments in Colombia is much appreciated by people here and in Colombia. The Government and the European Union have made it clear that any support for Colombia is conditional on the importance of the rule of law, the defence of human rights and international humanitarian law, assistance for victims of violence, and protection of the environment.
That is an important theme, and we have worked hard to ensure that non-governmental organisations, especially those involved in human rights, are involved in the debate. We convened the meeting in London to discuss the European response, and we encouraged the Colombian Government to take part in the Costa Rican conference with NGOs. When the permanent under-secretary visited Colombia this week, he was warmly welcomed by NGOs—both British and Colombian—for the way in which Britain maintains an emphasis on matters such as human rights. We will continue to do so, as such matters are important in this context.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: A key part of plan Colombia and the Colombian peace process is helping the Colombian Government in their fight against the drugs barons, and I am sure that the Minister would agree that the West Indies guard ship, now the Atlantic patrol task (north), has played a leading role in the successful seizures of narcotics. Is it not alarming, then, that the Government's defence cuts have resulted in the guard ship's failing to patrol for three months in each of the last two years? Can he confirm that there is currently no guard ship in the area, and that HMS Sheffield is not scheduled to deploy until next month and is in Portsmouth?
Has the Foreign Office made any protest to the Ministry of Defence, or requested that those ships reinstate their former patrols? Is it not true that, without British ships able to carry out that vital role, there will be more drugs on British streets?

Mr. Battle: We have no ships based in Colombia, as far as I am aware. To treat the hon. Lady's question seriously—the drugs trade is a serious matter—I emphasise that we do have an agreement with the Ministry of Defence. I believe that the operations of the West Indian guard ship do include counter-drugs work in the Caribbean, and that that is those ships' orbit of operations. They are working on targeting cocaine, which primarily comes from Colombia.
However, I emphasise that the West Indian guard ship is but one element in the efforts to take action against drugs trafficking in the whole region. That does mean collaboration and working closely with the Colombian Government.
If I remember rightly from reading the newspapers this weekend, there was action in the arrest of drug carriers on a cruise liner, if the hon. Lady will recall, which suggests that Customs and Excise is achieving some real successes. There are no cuts. There is improvement, particularly in our co-operation, which is a marked improvement on what happened under the last Administration, who did practically nothing.

Cuba

Angela Smith: If he will make a statement about Government relations with Cuba. [145037]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The Government enjoy a very good bilateral relationship with Cuba, based on open and frank discussions. Our policy is to pursue practical co-operation and critical dialogue. Like our European Union partners, we believe in constructive engagement, not isolation.

Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I put it to him that, as we explore and improve our economic and political co-operation with Cuba, we should not impose on Cuba through our EU common position, or on further development, conditions that would not also apply to other countries—that we should not treat Cuba differently? When representatives of the Foreign Office next meet President Bush, will they place on the record our very strong opposition to the embargo that the United States Government have placed on the Cuban people?

Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has campaigned diligently to improve relations with Cuba over a long period, which is welcome. I remind the House that the Cuba initiative was established in 1985, following a visit to Cuba by a former Department of Trade and Industry science Minister. As a result, the Caribbean trade advisory group set up a private sector group whose aim was to strengthen United Kingdom trade and investment ties. That group celebrated its fifth anniversary recently.
We intend to push that work further forward. We are steadily developing diplomatic relations with Cuba. There is an extensive exchange of ministerial visits and trade missions. As we have made plain all along, it is right that we should make clear our rejection of the US approach by supporting the Cuban United Nations resolution against that embargo, so that Cuba should not be treated differently; we agree with my hon Friend.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that Cuba remains a communist dictatorship run by the man who did more than anyone else to bring the world to the brink of nuclear war, why are the Government, and Labour Back Benchers, so enamoured of that dictatorial regime?

Mr. Battle: Under the previous Government, it was a Tory Minister who went to Cuba to open diplomatic relations, so I wonder whether the shadow Ministers have had a change of line. We have good bilateral relations. Business and cultural links will increase and we intend to foster them. Yes, there is real economic hardship and poverty in Cuba, as a result of other attitudes. It seems to me that some Tory Members are locked into an out-of-date time warp. It seems that, for some of them, the pre-1989 cold war is not yet over.
There are only some Tories who refuse to move on.

Mr. John McFall: Despite the trade embargo, the Minister will know of the growing influence of Cuba in the Caribbean and the fact that many countries are losing out on an opportunity. Is not the best way to encourage peaceful pluralism, democracy and economic progress to ensure that all sanctions are lifted and encourage trade and tourism? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will take that up with the new Administration in America?

Mr. Battle: We cannot accept that American attempts to control the activities of UK companies which do legitimate business with Cuba are fair. The Government and the European Union have made clear our opposition to the Helms-Burton arrangement and other extra-territorial legislation. I agree that those laws constrain legitimate commercial activity and are objectionable in principle. We shall continue to make that plain.

Turkey

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When he last had discussions with the Prime Minister of Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [145038]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary met Mr. Ecevit briefly at the European Council in Nice in December. The Prime Minister also had a bilateral meeting with him in January last year, when they discussed Turkey's EU candidacy, Greek-Turkish relations, EU-Turkey bilateral relations, the Caucasus, NATO and European defence. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets the Foreign Minister of Turkey regularly, most recently in Brussels in December.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. Has anyone in his Department spoken to the

Turkish Government about the plight of the 25,000 Kurdish people who are to be forcibly displaced to make way for the Ilisu dam? If no representations have been made, where is that ethical foreign policy?

Mr. Vaz: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we raise that matter whenever we have a discussion with our Turkish counterparts. The President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that four conditions, which he has set down, must be met before he is prepared to accede to the request for cover for the Ilisu dam. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to raise those issues until we are satisfied that all of those conditions are met.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What sort of ethical Government foreign policy denies the genocide of Armenians in Turkey—even though the British Government at the time the genocide took place acknowledged it—because a powerful ally in NATO refuses to acknowledge the sins of the past?

Mr. Vaz: The Government's foreign policy is not based on what other countries would like us to do. We have made clear our policy on that issue. That was a sad and sensitive event in the history of Armenia; that remains the position.

Sir David Madel: Do the Turkish Government accept that if Cyprus joins the European Union, there must be complete freedom of movement throughout the island? Therefore, when is the Turkish army going to leave and what is the Turkish Government's response when the Minister points out to them—as I hope he does—that Turkey must leave Cyprus, which must be restored as an independent state, and that there must be complete freedom of movement if Cyprus joins the EU?

Mr. Vaz: We are in complete agreement with the talks that are going on. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the proximity talks are important. We have a special representative, Sir David Hannay, who is dealing with those matters. Of course the issue concerns the EU. We have made clear our position on Cyprus's application to join the EU. We would prefer a united island to join, but unity is not a precondition of membership. All countries involved in that issue are aware of the position, and we shall continue to do everything that we possibly can to accept and follow the statement of the Prime Minister in December 1998, when he made it clear that he wanted to see matters resolved.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What do the Turks say about the use of their Incerlik air base in Anatolia for the purpose, last Saturday, of bombing an Iraqi cattle feed factory, killing six Iraqi cowherds?

Mr. Vaz: As my hon. Friend knows, Turkey is a NATO ally and has worked with the United Kingdom on a number of different conflicts. It is an ally on which we rely. As for the particular issue that he has raised, I give an assurance that I shall raise it with the Turkish ambassador when I see him this week.

Mr. Francis Maude: Will the Minister acknowledge that the Turkish Government have real


concerns about the creation of a European rapid reaction force outside NATO? Will he stop trying to pretend to the contrary?

Mr. Vaz: No.

Mr. Maude: Last June, the Foreign Secretary said that "they"—the non-EU NATO members—
recognise that it is an excellent outcome for them.—[Official Report, 15 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 1124.]
The Prime Minister of Turkey has said:
Turkey's rights … are being trampled on … EU military decisions with regard to NATO will be … made in our absence. It is impossible for us to accept this—[Interruption.]

Mr. Denis MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking for Turkey.

Mr. Maude: It is the Prime Minister of Turkey who will speak for Turkey. Who can we trust to represent the Turkish Government's view—the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary or the Turkish Prime Minister?

Mr. Vaz: We have made it absolutely clear that NATO remains the bedrock of our defence policy. We have explained that so many times to the right hon. Gentleman that I feel at pains to have to explain it again to him. On every single occasion, we are consulting and discussing with Turkey as a NATO ally. Turkey is relaxed about what we are proposing to do. When it has concerns, it discusses them within the proper parameters of the continuing discussions on defence policy. We do not have to discuss those concerns with the Conservative party.

EU Institutions (Gender Diversity)

Shona McIsaac: What steps he is taking to promote gender diversity inside EU institutions. [145039]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): We are committed to all efforts to improve gender diversity in the workplace. We strongly support initiatives to create environments favourable to the recruitment of women, to their promotion and to their career development within the EU institutions. Our own European fast stream programme helps to recruit women to the EU institutions: in the past two years, there have been more successful women candidates than men candidates. We also supported the June 2000 council resolution calling on the EU institutions to promote the balanced recruitment of men and women. We have done well, we can do better, and we are striving to do better.

Shona McIsaac: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Does the Government agree that encouraging women's participation in the political process is vital to democracy? If so, what advice would he give to the Conservative party, which admits that only 2 per cent. of its membership is women under 45?

Mr. Vaz: Fortunately, it is not part of my brief to offer advice to the Conservative party. However, I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the issue. She was, after all, the first woman Member of Parliament from

Cleethorpes in history, and her contribution in the sphere of gender diversity is well known. I assure her that the Foreign Secretary believes that it is extremely important not only that we get more women in the Foreign Office, appointed on the basis of merit, but that we encourage the European Union to appoint more women to the Commission and the Secretariat and to all the various bodies of the EU.
We are currently having discussions with the Swedish presidency. As my hon. Friend knows, half the members of the Swedish Cabinet are women. Therefore, there is a good opportunity to work with a country that has the presidency and will take the issue of gender diversity very seriously indeed. I thank her for raising this important issue.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to the inquiry from the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), will the Minister say what proportion of employees of European Union institutions are transsexuals, and how that figure compares with the achievement recorded thus far by British Departments?

Mr. Vaz: I personally have no knowledge of how many members of the European Union are trans-sexuals. However, the shadow Foreign Secretary seems to spend so much time talking to so many different people, I am sure that he will be able to find a quote from a trans-sexual that he will be able to pass on to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Lammy: I am sure that the whole House will welcome steps to make European Union institutions more representative of the communities that they serve, especially regarding women. Will my hon. Friend the Minister a comment on steps to promote ethnic diversity in our European institutions? He will be aware that there are more than 3 million Africans in France and that Germany has a large population of Muslims and Africans.

Mr. Vaz: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I am aware of all that he has done during his career to promote the cause of minority groups. I assure him that we regard diversity as relating to the employment not only of more women, but of more people from ethnic minorities. The United Kingdom has a very good story to tell about this subject. Indeed, I believe that we have a leadership role to play in the European Union. The number of Foreign Office employees who come from the ethnic minority community has doubled in its four years under my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Sierra Leone

Helen Jones: If he will make a statement on the United Nations Security Council expert panel report on the link between diamonds and the arms trade in Sierra Leone. [145040]

Mr. Roger Berry: What assessment the Government have made of the United Nations Security Council expert panel report on the link between diamonds and the arms trade in Sierra Leone. [145045]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We welcome the hard-hitting report by the UN Sierra Leone expert panel, which exposes sanctions busters such as Victor Bout. The UN Angola monitoring mechanism ah o detailed his sinister and destructive activities. As a large part of his operations are run from the United Arab Emirates, we have urged the UAE authorities to take all possible action to close down his companies in Sharjah and Dubai. We are delivering the same message to other Governments in countries where Bout is active.

Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that he believes that action should also be taken against another of the key sanctions busters named in the report, Sanjivan Ruprah? As Ruprah and his friends are supplying arms to be used against British troops in Sierra Leone, what are we going to do to stop him?

Mr. Hain: The actions of Sanjivan Ruprah are equally as odious as those of Victor Bout. He supplies diamonds and brings in arms with Victor Bout's assistance. We have barred him from entering Britain, as he sought to do last summer with his family, and we are working with the United Nations to obtain a Security Council resolution that will clamp down on his activities. He is based in Monrovia and we want smart sanctions to be taken against Liberia, which is perpetuating that mutilating war by orchestrating the rebel forces, the Revolutionary United Front.

Mr. Berry: Does my hon. Friend have any evidence of links between sanctions busters in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where diamonds and minerals help to sustain Africa's worst war? Will the Government continue to exert pressure on those involved to abide by the Lusaka agreement and to end this awful conflict?

Mr. Hain: In the murky world of African arms dealers and illicit diamond traders, there is a considerable overlap between those involved in Sierra Leone, Angola and the Congo, which has vast mineral resources. We must clamp down on all of them.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I am glad to have the opportunity to say that the British Government are urging all of those who are involved in this dreadful African war in the Congo to respect the Lusaka agreement, to which they signed up. Following President Kabila's assassination, we want to move forward beyond the deadlock to which he was unfortunately a party and to get the United Nations peacekeepers deployed. That can occur only after all the belligerent forces in the region, including African armies and rebel forces, draw back as they agreed to do in Lusaka almost two years ago. We can then end the war and allow prosperity and peace for the Congolese people.

Mr. David Heath: Is not there very little point in referring to the activities of the people who supply the arms that fuel the conflicts in Africa as odious if we are not prepared to take action to do something about them? Why will not this Parliament introduce on to the statute book a provision to control the activities of arms brokers and mercenaries?

Mr. Hain: On the latter point, a draft Bill, on which we are consulting, will shortly be considered in the House. It deals with precisely the sort of arms traffickers and brokers about whom the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is concerned. Our domestic legislation would not catch people such a Victor Bout, who is not a British citizen, and Sanjivan Ruprah, who occasionally uses a British passport, among others, and is not a British citizen.
No one can criticise the Government for not taking the most vigorous action that has been suggested internationally to clamp down on the arms and diamond traders who perpetuate the awful wars in Africa. We have led the way in the United Nations and elsewhere in bringing pressure to bear in discussions with Russia, other European countries and African countries where people such as Victor Bout and Sanjivan Ruprah are active.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Minister's answer would be more convincing if he was not part of a Government who connived at putting Corporal Sankoh in charge of the diamond-producing areas of Sierra Leone. When does he expect the forces of the Sierra Leone Government to take control of the diamond-producing areas so that they can produce a royalty for the democratically elected Government, not the bandits that run Liberia?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman's reference to Corporal Sankoh constitutes a prostitution of history and the Lomé agreement—[Interruption.] Yes it does, and he should withdraw that remark.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the importance of the Sierra Leone army's deployment into the diamond-producing areas of that country. That holds the key to a long-term solution to the conflict. British forces are helping to train the Sierra Leone army so that it is capable of deploying with the support of the United Nations. I ask the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Front-Bench Members to start backing British forces and the British Government's activities in Sierra Leone. They are seeking to bring peace and stability to a people who have been ravaged by a mutilating war. Conservative Members should stop carping and criticising and start backing the resolute action that we have taken.

Iran (Jewish Population)

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If he will make a statement on the treatment of Jews in Iran. [145042]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): The Jewish community in Iran is represented, as are other minorities, by a member in the Majlis. Judaism is among the religions recognised by the Iranian constitution. Jewish Iranians are free to run businesses and enjoy their culture, although the right to hold public office is circumscribed. However, we remain very concerned at the sentencing of 10 Jews and two Muslims on espionage charges.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I strongly commend my hon. Friend on the clear line that he has taken. Did he make it clear to the Iranian ambassador when he met him yesterday that those who choose to hold the most obnoxious show trials


of people whose only crime is being Jewish not only undermine any pretence to decent government in their country, but make it impossible for any nation outside Iran to support its future inclusion in international agreements?

Mr. Hain: I am pleased to assure my hon. Friend that I raised the matter with the ambassador when I saw him yesterday. I expressed the Government's—and, I am sure, the whole House's—deep anxiety about the trial. My hon. Friend's description of it is accurate. Although there is a reforming regime in Iran, led by President Khatami, reactionary forces seek to hold back those reforms. They continue to control the judiciary. They have used the trial reprehensibly, and the victims are there for all to see. We must continue to engage with Iran, support President Khatami's reform process and encourage his resistance to the reactionary forces by providing the international engagement and support for reform that Iran so desperately needs.

Mr. James Clappison: While we all want reform in. Iran, is not the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) right to say that the trial fell far short of international standards of justice? While the 10 members of the Jewish community and two Muslims languish in jail in Iran, there is a serious blemish on Iran's human rights record. As the hon. Lady rightly said, it is a serious impediment to relations between this country and Iran. Will the Minister take every opportunity to impress that on the Iranian Government for as long as those unfortunate individuals continue to suffer injustice?

Mr. Hain: I am happy to give that assurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) has raised that matter often in the House, for which I applaud him. The sentences have been reduced—that is a welcome development—and we continue to press for the Iranian authorities to show clemency. However, we must recognise that the way in which we do that is important because we could play into the hands of reactionary forces. They do not want western engagement or to make friends with the international community; they want to return to the belligerent isolationism of the 1980s and early 1990s.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that Iran's role in arming Hezbollah to provoke terrorism along Israel's northern border intensifies concern about Iran's treatment of its Jews?

Mr. Hain: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have raised the issue specifically with the Iranian Government at the highest possible level, whenever we have had the opportunity. Hezbollah does not operate on its own—it has supporters in Syria and Iran, and the sooner that support is cut off, the better.

Mr. Richard Spring: This week, in particular, when we remember the holocaust and what has, at times, been the terrible historic persecution of Jewish minorities, is the hon. Gentleman aware that nothing further has been heard about a possible annulment

of the verdicts against the 10 Iranian Jews since 25 October? Will he press for progress to he made on that specific point?

Mr. Hain: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and to say yes, we are pressing for specific progress on that issue: I did so yesterday. May I remind him that this Government introduced the national holocaust day, on which we remember the dreadful genocide committed by the Nazis against the Jews during and before the second world war? We shall continue to ensure that no one in Britain ever forgets that awful legacy.

Nice Treaty (Polish Community)

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What representations he has received from the Polish community in Britain about the ratification of the treaty of Nice. [145044]

The Secretary of Sate for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Both the Federation of Poles in Great Britain and the Government of Poland have expressed their welcome for the outcome of the Nice European Council and their recognition of Britain's contribution in securing it. We have replied to the letter from the federation assuring it that we will seek early ratification of the treaty of Nice in order that Poland and others can become members of the European Union as soon as possible. I invite the Opposition spokesman to give the federation the same commitment.

Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I think that he knows that there is a significant Polish community in my constituency of Plymouth, Sutton. I am sure that many of its members will join me in welcoming the treaty. Is it not absolutely clear that what the countries of east and central Europe want most from the European Union is speedy ratification of the treaty? Would it not be a terrible betrayal of those countries if we were to reject the treaty, given that they have suffered so much under Soviet rule?

Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Across all the applicant countries, there is acute interest in how we shall respond to the treaty of Nice. A number of them have warned us that if the European Union does not proceed with the treaty, it will strengthen the hand of nationalists and extreme forces within their countries. It is, therefore, important that we proceed with the measures.
I noticed with interest that the Leader of the Opposition has called for target dates for Poland and other countries to enter the European Union. That requires real brass neck from a party that is insisting that there should be a new intergovernmental conference, followed by renegotiation of the treaty, and a referendum on the results of that renegotiation. I should like to hear a target date for how long that would take, and how much it would delay enlargement.

Sir Peter Tapsell: When will the full, definitive English translation of the treaty of Nice be made available, so that the British people can fully


understand those horrible aspects of the treaty that do not bear on the expansion of the union to the east, but bear on the liberties of the British people?

Mr. Cook: There is a full English text of the treaty, and I shall be happy to deliver one to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that I noticed last week that The Sun said that Britain had emerged as the winner from the treaty of Nice. I warn the hon. Gentleman and his party that there is no electoral majority to the right of that Eurosceptic newspaper, The Sun.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to the maximum possible enlargement of the European Union, and that, if that happens, institutional changes in the organisation will be required to make it more efficient? Can he also confirm that although those who believe that we can reject the Nice treaty or hold up the process of institutional change pretend to favour enlargement, they are in effect saying to Poland and other countries in central and eastern Europe that, in reality, enlargement will not happen if we ever have another Conservative Government in this country?

Mr. Cook: There will be no enlargement without reform of the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament. That is what we secured at Nice. I remind the House that the outcome is good not simply for enlargement and the candidate countries, but for Britain. For the first time since we joined the European Community, we secured an increase in Britain's vote in the Council of Ministers. It is that gain that the Opposition describe as a horrible outcome.

EU Enlargement

Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with his Swedish counterpart on preparations for the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [145046]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): At yesterday's meeting of the General Affairs Council, I welcomed the commitment of the Swedish presidency to give enlargement of the European Union -the highest priority".
In the candidate countries, enlargement will promote investment and prosperity and underpin freedom and stability. In the existing member states, enlargement will widen trade and enable us to find solutions to common problems such as cross-border crime. For that reason, we want negotiations with the best-prepared candidates to be concluded next year, but enlargement will not be possible unless we ratify the treaty of Nice in the meantime.

Miss McIntosh: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that full reply. Does he share my pleasure that enlargement has been made one of the top priorities? Does he share my concern that agriculture should be made the top priority to enable sufficient time to be taken to negotiate what is

probably the most difficult policy area, in particular to help the Baltic states and Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to join when we hope they will join, by 2004–05?

Mr. Cook: I agree that agriculture will be one of the more difficult dossiers for negotiation. It is important that we proceed with reform of agriculture policy, but it is equally important that we do not make that a condition of enlargement; otherwise, those who oppose agricultural reform will find that that is a basis on which to oppose enlargement.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When my right hon. Friend meets the Swedish Government to discuss EU enlargement, will he be prepared to raise the Turkish application to join and whether the human rights situation, the number of people in prison, prison conditions, the number of people on hunger strike and the denial of human rights to so many people in Turkey renders that country ineligible to join?

Mr. Cook: The simple fact is that if Turkey is to proceed with its candidacy, it must meet the Copenhagen criteria on political and legal reforms and respect for ethnic minorities. All those in Turkey who have campaigned for such reforms enthusiastically support Turkey's application to join the EU because they consider that to be one of the strongest levers that they have to deliver the reforms that are important to them and important to my hon. Friend. There is no prospect of negotiations starting until Turkey meets those political conditions.

Mr. Tony Baldry: As we approach national holocaust day, does the Secretary of State agree that perhaps the best memorial that we could raise to the victims of Nazism and Stalinism in Europe would be the creation of an enlarged Europe embracing the countries of the Baltic and eastern Europe?

Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely and share the hon. Gentleman's view. One of the greatest gains from enlargement will be that the countries of central and eastern Europe will have underpinned the freedoms, the justice and the stability that we in western Europe currently enjoy. That will be a gain for them; it will also be a gain for us.

North Korea

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps have been taken to promote trade with North Korea since the establishment of diplomatic relations with that country. [145047]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): Recent developments in relations between South and North Korea are good news and, as part of our establishment of diplomatic relations, we are taking steps to promote trade relations with North Korea.

Mr. Prentice: It is indeed good news that the so-called hermit kingdom is, after half a century, emerging into


the daylight. A North Korean delegation is coming to Westminster next week or the week after. My concern is that 20 million North Koreans exist on the edge of starvation—there are terrible famines there—and 2 million have already perished. We established diplomatic relations last month, but what can we do to follow that through by achieving improved trade relations and, in particular, by boosting North Korea's agricultural sectors so that it can feed its own people?

Mr. Battle: Trade Partners UK, in consultation with the Korean business advisory group, is preparing detailed

advice for British business. That advice, which will be available from March this year, is expected to be regularly updated as our relationship develops and our understanding of North Korea improves.
It is important for us to join in the campaign to eradicate poverty, famine and hunger in North Korea. I shall be meeting the delegation that will arrive next week. We think that, for once, the policy—that, in particular, of Kim Dae Jung: the "sunshine policy"—to promote a thaw in relations with the north has been successful so far. We want to encourage it and see it develop further.

Orders of the Day — Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is part of the Government's response to companies' legitimate worries about the effects of aligning the income tax and national insurance treatment of employee share options.
Before 6 April 1999 the national insurance liability on employee share options arose at the date of the grant of an option, whereas for many years income tax liability has crystallised at the date of exercise of the option. That differential treatment ended in 1999. Options granted on or after 6 April 1999 relating to shares that are readily convertible into cash are now subject to treatment under national insurance rules that is similar to that under the income tax and PAYE rules. Provided that the option is not capable of being exercised more than 10 years following granting of the option, there is no national insurance liability at the time of grant instead, the liability arises at the date of exercise, and the figure is the same as that which is chargeable to income tax.
Following the change many companies, especially those involved in international activities, expressed concern about accounting difficulties caused by the unpredictability of their secondary national insurance charges. The liability for a company as secondary contributor is uncapped, and is dependent on the volatility of the company's share price. Following a period of consultation, we introduced measures last year that went someway towards meeting those concerns.

Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Financial Secretary tell me what, during the process of legislative preparation, caused the Treasury or the Inland Revenue to miss the point to which he just referred—the inability of the legislator to perceive the practical implications of the proposal with which the Bill seeks to deal?

Mr. Timms: Many changes have been made since the introduction of the measure. I think that the rapid rise in the share prices of some of the companies affected was unforeseen by them and others when those changes were made; certainly what has happened in the stock market was not predicted at the time.
We announced that employers would be able to ask employees to bear the secondary national insurance charge on the share option gain. That announcement was made on 19 May last year, and has generally received a good response. Companies have said that it has removed their accounting difficulties in relation to future awards of options.
Last year's legislation was drafted to cover all the options that had already been granted. In practice, it has been difficult for employers to negotiate with employees terms that change options already granted to them. For many companies, uncertainty has remained in regard to options granted between 6 April 1999, when the change was made, and 19 May last year, when the new rules were announced. One company, for example, has a provision somewhere in excess of $100 million in its accounts for options granted during that period which it cannot currently remove. We have accepted the strength and seriousness of those concerns and I suggest to the House that the Bill meets them in a simple and practical way.
We are giving companies the chance to settle their national insurance liabilities on the options granted between 6 April 1999 and 19 May 2000 and to do so early, in advance of the date when the actual gain is made by the employee. Companies that choose to take advantage of this will calculate the amount of national insurance due by reference to the accrued gain up to 7 November 2000; the day before the pre-Budget statement when the proposals were announced. They will be required to notify the Inland Revenue and pay the appropriate amount within a period of 60 days of Royal Assent of the Bill. That effectively caps the national insurance liability by reference to the company's share price on 7 November last year and provides the company with complete certainty.
The benefits to the company are that it will be able to remove the need to make further provision against profits; it will be able to remove the provision for the liability from its balance sheet; and it will save national insurance contribution costs in relation to any further upward movement of the share price. The Bill offers early settlement as a quid pro quo for certainty.

Mr. John Bercow: The Minister said that companies had welcomed the delegation of responsibility to employees for secondary national insurance contributions. Could he explain in terms of the accounting benefit to those companies whether he thinks that the saving can be quantified in terms of money or simply in manpower and inconvenience avoided?

Mr. Timms: I am not sure whether it is either of those. The benefit of the change is that the employee taking on the liability is the person who controls when the liability falls, because that is the point when the options are exercised. The uncertainty in the company's accounts about when the exercise will occur and what the share price at the time will be is removed. The removal of uncertainty is the key benefit of the new arrangement. However, that leaves a problem in terms of those options that had already been exercised between the change in April 1999 and the announcement on 19 May last year. It is that period, and the uncertainly left by options issued in that period, that is addressed by the Bill.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Could the Minister explain the principle that underlies the requirement to pay national insurance contributions on those increases in the price of the company's shares in


relation to readily convertible assets? Is it not to prevent an abuse of that system? Could that not have been simply dealt with by always capping it at a modest figure which reflected the use of that money as an artificial settlement to pay, but left completely untouched genuine increases over time in the company's share price?

Mr. Timms: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right that there is a problem of abuse being addressed, but the mechanism that he proposes would leave unresolved a significant part of the problem, which was that there was a significant incentive for organisations to find ways to reimburse their staff through options—because the national insurance liability would not arise—rather than through salary.
We want an arrangement where the national insurance system is not biased in favour of either of those options. A number of organisations had come up with some quite ingenious methods of doing that. If we capped the national insurance liability, it would leave the bias in favour of the options route, as opposed to the salary route. We felt that that should not be allowed to continue.
When a company opts to settle its national insurance liabilities in this way, a special contribution will be payable by the employer on the deemed gain. This will be an employer-only charge, payable at the current class 1 secondary contribution rate of 12.2 per cent. A special employer-only contribution has been created so that the employee is not required to pay employees' national insurance as a result of the employer's decision to settle early.
When an option is settled, the employee will not be required to pay employees' national insurance on either the deemed or the actual gain. When an employee has taken on the liability for the employer's national insurance contributions under the measures introduced last summer, the employee will also be able to take advantage of this measure and settle his or her liabilities. We have ensured that the tax relief available to the employee, when the employee takes on the employer's liability, will still be available when the employee settles the liability in accordance with the Bill.

Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister referred to the contingencies that companies must have in their accounts for what might be the increase in national insurance liabilities. Has he made any estimate of the costs to the Treasury of the difference between the deemed gain on 7 November and what might have occurred with the payment of these options at the end of this financial year?

Mr. Timms: Yes, I have made an assessment of that, and we have published the figures. In the first year we anticipate that there will be a higher level of receipts to the Treasury because payments will be made early, but in later years there will be a significant loss. I have the figures but, from memory, the net loss to the Exchequer over the period would be about £150 million.
The Bill responds to the concerns of employers. We anticipate that many companies will take up this opportunity to crystallise their national insurance liability. I have pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.

Mr. Howard Flight: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill because, while it contains provisions which improve upon the existing unreasonable situation, it would be unreasonable to require companies to gamble on their tax liabilities where share options may never be exercised and possibly contrary to the provisions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
I begin by declaring an interest, as indicated, as a director of a company that has option schemes. The Bill is the Government's second attempt to correct measures that they got wrong in the April 1999 legislation which introduced the gains on options as subject to national insurance and income tax.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not being silly, but there is a point of principle involved here, and I should be grateful for your clarification. Surely when a declaration is made, it is meant to be more specific than simply a general declaration.

Mr. Speaker: The details of a declaration are for the Member and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The details of a registration, as opposed to a declaration, are a matter for the Member and the Commissioner. I am speaking specifically about a declaration on the Floor of the House of Commons which has been the subject of some consideration by the Standards and Privileges Committee. I ask you to clarify the position, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is also a matter for the hon. Member concerned. I notice that on the Order Paper, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has declared an interest. As far as I can see, the hon. Gentleman has conducted himself properly.

Mr. Flight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Bill might better he described as the share options (correction of further mistakes) Bill. The whole saga illustrates the hollowness of the Government's alleged support for entrepreneurship. In the beginning, back in April 1999, they saw scope for a major stealth tax. They expected to raise about £1 billion of revenues, as confirmed to me in correspondence from the Treasury. They then forgot that many companies' share prices may perform as a result of future expectations, but that they may not have the cash to meet the liability. Indeed, the national insurance contributions liability could have put such companies into financial difficulties. As outlined, the measures in May 2000—

Mr. Timms: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not recognise the figure of £1 billion that he cites. Will he tell the House what that figure relates to?

Mr. Flight: I wrote to the Treasury last August in order to clarify matters and asked what revenue the Treasury expected from the levy of NICs on the exercise of options.


The reply was that the revenue was expected to be about £1 billion per annum. I will be happy to send the Minister a copy of the letter. However, estimates made by employment accountants do not show anything like that figure, because existing measures are likely substantially to reduce the attractiveness of unapproved option schemes for new businesses.
The Government first endeavoured to deal with the problems that they had created by enabling employers to transfer their liabilities to employees, but they forgot that, between April 1999 and May 2000, many companies had granted options which they were not able to transfer. The legislation is thus a response to the howls of many high-tech and young businesses and to the many companies who have advised that they will move their entrepreneurial endeavours overseas. The measure addresses those specific complaints.
The Bill introduces a most unacceptable principle; it invites companies to gamble with their NIC tax liabilities. In essence, it says, "Pay up on the gain to 7 November or run the risk of higher NIC liabilities in the future". However, such liabilities may never arise; staff may leave or be sacked and the options will lapse, or the share price may not perform. Company managements will have to take unreasonable decisions with shareholders' funds.
One of the main intentions of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 is to get rid of the scope for market abuse through the sending of misleading signals to the public on share prices and on the potential performance of companies. A company may decide not to elect for the special NIC payment because it may estimate that its business will not perform well, so the value of its shares will not rise. Equally, it may decide not to do so because it wants to initiate staff changes, or—more likely—it may not have enough cash.
A company that decides not to exercise its option within the 60-day period will send a signal that will be interpreted by the markets as negative for that company and its share price and vice versa—the signals may be entirely misleading. That is a classic example of what market abuse is all about. Even if the abuse is unintended, committing it is a criminal offence The measures that have been introduced will lead to such problems.
The Government could not resist including a further stealth tax angle in this relieving measure. The Bill brings forward NIC payments; it may elicit NIC payments that might not otherwise be made. Worse than that, when individuals are giving the election, they will pay their NICs but may never exercise the options and will be unable to offset the NIC payment made against income tax.
The Bill is deficient in that it does not make clear when those people exercising that special provision will be able to offset against income tax the NICs they have paid. It gives insufficient notice; 60 days is unreasonable. The Minister assures me that the detailed regulations will be available if and when the Bill becomes law, but they have not been published in draft. Many small businesses do not have legal advisers on tap. If companies are foreign subsidiaries—as is so often the case in the UK at present—options are frequently handled outside the UK in the parent company. That company may not be aware of that and may not act in time. Therefore, the provisions could be unfair. The sharp companies will avail themselves of the gamble if it apparently makes sense;

the smaller businesses and foreign ones may not. The Bill is, dare I say, very poorly drafted. No doubt, we shall address that in more detail in Committee.

Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather odd that representations by companies, such as NTL, Micromuse and Cisco, caused the Government to react to a potentially damaging event in this case, yet on the climate change levy, which will vastly affect manufacturing industry to its great detriment, companies have received absolutely no response from the Government?

Mr. Flight: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, but I would add that such companies complain that they were not consulted about the Bill, which came out of the blue. The lack of consultation is one of the reasons why the Bill contains many technical errors.
Clause 3 is a complete drafting mess, and roll-overs are misconstrued and mishandled. The arrangements are over-complex. It would be much more straightforward if the special NIC were payable on the exercise of the options, which would remove the gamble and the need for notice. It would make much more sense to exclude companies whose shares are not readily convertible assets and those whose option prices are any way under water on 7 November. That would save companies and the Inland Revenue a huge amount of unnecessary time and effort.
The individual appointed by the Government as chairman of the small business investment taskforce has said that, in his view, the whole share option-NIC arrangements are punitive and will be highly negative to entrepreneurship in this country. Contrary to the Minister's previous comments on Report on the Finance Act 2000, United Kingdom tax and other arrangements on approved and unapproved option schemes are significantly less generous than those in the United States. Unapproved option schemes in the US involve a 39.6 per cent. charge on exercise, but the tax paid can be offset against the issuing company's corporate tax, producing an overall net tax charge of about 15 per cent. and enabling companies to be much more generous in option issuance. In the case of approved options, US individuals can have $100,000 per annum; they pay tax only on sale, not on exercise; and social charges are capped at incomes of $74,000. Therefore, there is virtually no US equivalent in practice to the UK NIC charge.

Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he confirm that, as I said when we have previously debated such matters, the figure of 39.6 per cent. refers only to federal tax, on top of which there are state taxes?

Mr. Flight: The Minister is correct, but nothing like a 47.32 per cent. gross rate is achieved. If the Government were to tell companies that the tax paid by individuals could be offset against corporation tax, they would readily agree that the overall taxation of unapproved options in the United Kingdom was competitive with that in the United States. At present, the overall situation is wildly uncompetitive, which is why so many new, growing companies, such as those to which reference has been made, are increasingly undertaking their entrepreneurial activities outside the United Kingdom.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend rightly expresses the concerns of small businesses. In November 2000,


the Government issued a code of consultation on such matters, but there is a feeling abroad that they have not fulfilled it. Will he comment on that?

Mr. Flight: There is a feeling that, bluntly, the proposals are all about raising further stealth taxes. There is no argument in principle for applying NICs to option gains; they are different from remuneration. Someone may go to work for a small business, take a lower salary and be awarded options in the hope that he will gain from them. However, there is no certainty that he will; it will depend entirely on whether the company does well and the share price goes up. If he leaves a well-paid job in a mature company such as Unilever, he will forgo his certain salary. There is a complete mismatch between certain and uncertain income, The logic for the argument that options are the same as salary does not exist.
Conservative Members accept that the Government have shown some good faith in trying to tackle this problem. However, to put it candidly, the Bill is a dog's dinner and it has been drafted on the hoof. It is full of errors that we shall consider later and it will introduce a flawed principle that will make companies gamble with shareholders' funds. Consequently, they could even contravene the law by committing the offence of market abuse that was introduced by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. We need to start again and recast this relieving measure, which is necessary and fair.

Mr. Speaker: I take it that the hon. Gentleman moved his amendment.

Mr. Flight: I did, and it stresses that it is wrong to invite companies to gamble with their tax liabilities. That could result in the unintentional commitment of the offence of market abuse.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I shall be brief, because the Bill primarily attempts to make amends for the errors that the Government made in their original proposals. It is the second time that they have had to correct such errors and it remains to be seen whether it is the final time that they have to do so. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) suggested that it will not, but I am not sure whether I agree with all his criticisms. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's reply.
The Bill appears to fill the most obvious gap in the Government's previous proposals. It left some companies facing the potential for serious liabilities without their having an exit route, and that partly answers the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. The Bill is intended to give companies an opportunity to resolve the problem of potential liabilities without forcing them down a route that might not be in their interests. The Conservatives describe that as gambling; I would describe it as offering choice to businesses that know their own position and can assess what is in their best interests. Although we have criticised the Government's approach, we shall support the Bill because it provides an answer to the most fundamental flaw that currently exists.
I wish to raise two issues that flow out of the mess that has brought us to this point. First, the tendency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meddle in tax detail rather

than to seek to simplify and reform the broader tax system creates unnecessary problems and complications. Although he has had many successes, many people believe that the over-complication of the tax system has not done him a service. It certainly has not done the House and those who seek to understand the tax system a service, but it might have helped many accountants to increase their profits.
Secondly, the reason for the complication, for all the difficulties that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs outlined and for the Government's difficulty in making sense of the changes is the fundamentals of a tax system in which the income tax and national insurance systems are not in line. If the Government wanted to bring the treatment of national insurance and income tax in line to create a single, more sensible structure, they would release a great many costs that fall on businesses and individuals who have to deal with a two-tier system that bears no relation to the realities of the way in which the national insurance fund is used.
There is a fundamental deceit. National insurance is not a fund that people pay into to cover their future liabilities, but a vehicle that is treated simply as current taxation. Yet we have to go through all the complications that imply a system that is otherwise. That structure cannot be reformed rapidly without creating some unfairness. A long-term process of reform, which has a clear structure that is followed by the Government, would benefit everyone and remove the need for intensely technical debates. Such debates attract few hon. Members and hold even less interest for people outside the House, but go a long way to making a complicated tax system even worse.

Mr. Timms: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I followed both speeches with interest? The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) concluded his remarks by saying that the measure was necessary and fair. Although I did not agree with many of his remarks, I could at least agree with that.
The hon. Gentleman characterised the Bill as a measure for correcting further mistakes. He is wrong about that. It completes the process that began with the announcement of the transfer on 19 May last year, and provides a necessary and fair resolution of the position with regard to the options that were issued in the gap period.

Mr. John Burnett: As a result of this measure and earlier changes, a company will want to shift the national insurance contributions liability to employees, but they will not want to assume it for nothing. How will Indemnity payments that companies make to employees For assuming that liability be treated in terms of tax and national insurance contributions?

Mr. Timms: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by indemnity payments. We have arranged an offset against income tax when the additional liability is taken on. An employee will pay an effective rate that is rather more than 7 per cent., instead of the full 12.2 per cent., which is the effective rate that the employer pays. If income tax is paid at 40 per cent., the rate will fall to 7 per cent. That is a helpful step.

Mr. Burnett: If a payment that is made to an employee by way of an indemnity for assuming the liability for NIC


is fully deductible in a company's accounts, will it be tax and NIC free in the employee's hands? I accept that an element of guesswork will be involved.

Mr. Timms: I shall reflect on the hon. Gentleman's question and respond to it before I conclude my remarks.
I was asked about the overall cost of the measure to the Treasury over the five-year period. I said that it would be about £150 million. In fact, we estimate the cost to be £160 million, which is roughly in line with what I said.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said that the measure would require companies to gamble. Like the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), I do not accept that characterisation. The Bill gives companies the opportunity to make a judgment and to decide which way forward is in their best interest. It gives them additional flexibility and freedom, which is helpful. I do not believe that companies will share the view of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that if a company's shares were not readily convertible assets, or if they were options that were under water—that is, the share price was less than when the option was granted—it might be helpful if it were possible to deem that those options had been settled in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, rather than requiring companies to make an application and to follow the full procedure. That is an interesting point, on which I will reflect. No doubt we will return to the matter in Committee.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell for the measure. He made a case for further integration of the taxation and national insurance systems—an argument that we have heard in other forums. We have made good progress in aligning arrangements for the two. The measure that started the process that we are debating is an example of that alignment. We have brought together the organisations administering the two systems—the National Insurance Contributions Office is now part of the Inland Revenue. I expect the trend to continue.
In Committee we will consider in detail the way in which the Bill will operate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) asked an interesting question—whether there was a danger that in certain conditions, the wrong signals would be sent to the market, dependent upon whether a company was prepared to adopt within a 60-day period the right to the course of action outlined in the Bill. Is there not a danger that that might happen? Can my hon. Friend elaborate on the possibility?

Mr. Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs raised an interesting point, but I do not believe that there are grounds for concern. The great benefit to a company of taking the proposed route is the certainty that it brings to its future liabilities. The company is not making a public statement about what it believes will happen to its share price in future.
The uncertainty that the measure removes relates not just to the future share price pattern, but to the future occasions on which the option will be exercised. That is under the control of the employee, not the company.

It would be difficult to draw much inference about a company's expectations of its future share price from the decision that it makes with regard to the measure. Everyone accepts that the benefit of certainty is immense. It will remove an unknown and uncertain future liability, which will justify the change made possible by the Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not the information to which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred be gleaned from the accounts? Has not the Accountancy Standards Board laid down rules as to how that information is defined in the accounts? is not that body in a position to redefine the rules so that share options could appear elsewhere in the accounts, where they would not be immediately identified with the failure to exercise the rights set out in the Bill?

Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right: the continuing debate in the accountancy profession about how options should be accounted has not yet been resolved. However, I do not think that the outcome of that debate will affect how we proceed with the Bill, which gives a helpful new certainty to companies that have issued options in the period.

Mr. Flight: Would the Minister agree that the market would assume that a company that did not avail itself of the special NIC option was pretty pessimistic about its future? However, might not there be some good practical reasons, which were not negative with regard to a company's prospects, to explain why a company had not availed itself of the option? The most obvious would be that a company wanted to make a substantial change among its executives, with the result that many options would lapse. Cash flow may also be relevant, so it is possible that a misleading signal could be given to the markets. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is right to say that the information will appear in the accounts, but the news is likely to be in the markets beforehand.

Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman argues against his own point, as he said earlier that many interpretations could be placed on a company's decision not to avail itself of the opportunity provided by the Bill. For example, it might consider—reasonably enough—that many of the options would never be exercised, but that would not have anything to do with the company's future prospects. Because there could be so many reasons for a company not availing itself of the option, we need not fear that the market would interpret the decision in any particular way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Little things often go wrong. Has my hon. Friend the Minister consulted widely on the impact of possible events that have not been considered in the House today? Is he satisfied that he has considered all the relevant issues in detail, and that there is therefore no need to worry?

Mr. Timms: I have discussed the matters widely with many companies. I was accused a few minutes ago of taking too much notice of what people had said on the matter. I cannot give the House a categorical assurance that I have thought through every conceivable element of the Bill, and I am sure that there will be some fruitful discussions in Committee. However, I can assure my


hon. Friend that we have consulted widely, and talked to people specialising in the accounting treatment of the provisions of the Bill. I am reasonably satisfied that we will not run into unforeseen difficulties such as my hon. Friend quite rightly described.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked about would happen when a company chose to "indemnify"—as he put it—the payments made to an employee. Any payment from an employer to an employee is subject to tax and national insurance. The tax relief that will be offered is only the relief that I described—that is, for the amount of secondary national insurance contributions that the employee bears. However, if the employer takes back some of the liability—if he, for example, cancels some of it out—the employee will not pay further tax and national insurance on that. In other words, I consider that in the situation that the hon. Gentleman has described, there would not be what one would regard as an indemnity; rather, the employer would take back some of the liability, and if that happened the question of tax and national insurance would not arise.
We anticipate that as many as two thirds of eligible companies will choose to take advantage of the measure; we have already had expressions of interest from more than 50. The ability to settle the liability based on current values and remove future growth from the charge to national insurance will help many companies. I believe that it will be widely welcomed and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made—

The Committee divided: Ayes 117, Noes 280.

Division No. 74]
[4.15 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fox, Dr Liam


Baldry, Tony
Fraser, Christopher


Bercow, John
Gale, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Blunt, Crispin
Gibb, Nick


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Green, Damian


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Grieve, Dominic


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Butterfill, John
Hague, Rt Hon William


Chope, Christopher
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clappison, James
Hammond, Philip


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heald, Oliver



Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Collins, Tim
Horam, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Jenkin, Bernard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemptice)
Key, Robert


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lansley, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Fabricant, Michael
Lidington, David


Fallon, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Flight, Howard
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)





Loughton, Tim
Shepherd, Richard


Luff, Peter
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Soames, Nicholas


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Spicer, Sir Michael


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spring, Richard


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Madel, Sir David
Steen, Anthony


Malins, Humfrey
Swayne, Desmond


Maples, John
Syms, Robert


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tredinnick, David


May, Mrs Theresa
Trend, Michael


Norman, Archie
Tyrie, Andrew


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Walter, Robert


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Randall, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Yeo, Tim


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)



Ruffley, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


St Aubyn, Nick
Mr. Stephen Day and


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. James Gray.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Casale, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Caton, Martin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cawsey, Ian


Allan, Richard
Chaytor, David


Allen, Graham
Chidgey, David


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clapham, Michael



Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clelland, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clwyd, Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Coaker, Vernon


Atkins, Charlotte
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bailey, Adrian
Cohen, Harry


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Connarty, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cooper, Yvette


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Corston, Jean


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cotter, Brian


Bennett, Andrew F
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cranston, Ross


Berry, Roger
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cummings, John


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blackman, Liz
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davidson, Ian


Brand, Dr Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)


Breed, Colin
Dawson, Hilton


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Denham, John


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dismore, Andrew


Buck, Ms Karen
Dobbin, Jim


Burden, Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burnett, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Butler, Mrs Christine
Doran, Frank


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dowd, Jim


Cable, Dr Vincent
Drew, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth



Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Edwards, Huw


Cann, Jamie
Efford, Clive


Caplin, Ivor
Ellman, Mrs Louise






Ennis, Jeff
McFall, John


Fearn, Ronnie
McIsaac, Shona


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
McNulty, Tony


Flint, Caroline
MacShane, Denis


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McWalter, Tony


Foster, Don (Bath)
McWilliam, John


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Mallaber, Judy


Gapes, Mike
Martlew, Eric


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Maxton, John


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Miller, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
Mitchell, Austin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moffatt, Laura


Grogan, John
Moore, Michael


Hain, Peter
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mountford, Kali


Hanson, David
Mudie, George


Harvey, Nick
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Healey, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Oaten, Mark


Hendrick, Mark
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hepburn, Stephen
Olner, Bill


Heppell, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Öpik, Lembit


Hill, Keith
Pearson, Ian


Howells, Dr Kim
Perham, Ms Linda


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pickthall, Colin


Hurst, Alan
Pike, Peter L


Hutton, John
Plaskitt, James


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pond, Chris


Illsley, Eric
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jamieson, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Jenkins, Brian
Purchase, Ken


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Rendel, David


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)



Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rooney,Terry


Joyce, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keetch, Paul
Rowlands, Ted


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Ruane, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Ruddock, Joan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Khabra, Piara S
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kidney, David
Sanders, Adrian


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sarwar, Mohammad


Kirkwood, Archy
Savidge, Malcolm


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Sedgemore, Brian


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Shaw, Jonathan


Lammy, David
Sheerman, Barry


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Laxton, Bob
Shipley, Ms Debra


Lepper, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Leslie, Christopher
Singh, Marsha


Levitt, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Linton, Martin
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Livsey, Richard

Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Soley, Clive


McDonnell, John
Southworth, Ms Helen





Spellar, John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tyler, Paul


Steinberg, Gerry
Vaz, Keith


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wareing, Robert N


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Watts, David


Stinchcombe, Paul
Webb, Steve


Stringer, Graham
White, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stunell, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wills, Michael


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winnick, David


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wood, Mike


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Woolas, Phil


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Todd, Mark
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon
Tellers for the Noes:


Truswell, Paul
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 3.

Division No. 75]
[4.29 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cable, Dr Vincent


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)




Campbell-Savours, Dale


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cann, Jamie


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Caplin, Ivor


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Casale, Roger


Atherton, Ms Candy
Caton, Martin


Atkins, Charlotte
Cawsey, Ian


Bailey, Adrian
Chaytor, David


Ballard, Jackie
Chidgey, David


Bayley, Hugh
Clapham, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clelland, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clwyd, Ann


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coaker, Vernon


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F
Coleman, Iain


Benton, Joe
Colman, Tony


Berry, Roger
Connarty, Michael


Best, Harold
Cooper, Yvette


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blackman, Liz
Corston, Jean


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cotter, Brian


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cranston, Ross


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Crausby, David


Bradshaw, Ben
Cummings, John


Brand, Dr Peter
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Breed, Colin
Dalyell, Tam


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Darvill, Keith


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Buck, Ms Karen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Burden, Richard
Davidson, Ian


Burnett, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burstow, Paul
Dawson, Hilton






Denham, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Drew, David
Joyce, Eric


Drown, Ms Julia
Keetch, Paul


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kemp, Fraser


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Efford, Clive
Khabra, Piara S


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kidney, David


Ennis, Jeff
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fearn, Ronnie
Kirkwood, Archy


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Flint, Caroline
Lammy, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Foster, Don (Bath)
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Leslie, Christopher


Gapes, Mike
Levitt, Tom


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gerrard, Neil
Linton, Martin


Gibson, Dr Ian
Livsey, Richard


Gidley, Sandra
Liwyd, Elfyn


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grocott, Bruce
McDonnell, John


Grogan, John
McFall, John


Hain, Peter
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McNulty, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
MacShane, Denis


Hanson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Harris, Dr Evan
McWalter, Tony


Harvey, Nick
McWilliam, John


Healey, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mallaber, Judy


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maxton, John


Hendrick, Mark
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hill, Keith
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hoey, Kate
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howells, Dr Kim
Miller, Andrew


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moffatt, Laura


Hurst, Alan
Moore, Michael


Hutton, John
Moran, Ms Margaret


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Illsley, Eric
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jamieson, David
Mullin, Chris


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)





Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torlaen)
Snape, Peter


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Soley, Clive


Oaten, Mark
Southworth, Ms Helen


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Spellar, John


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Olner, Bill
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Öpik, Lembit
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pearson, Ian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Perham, Ms Linda
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Pickthall, Colin
Stringer, Graham


Pike, Peter L
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Plaskitt, James
Stunell, Andrew


Pond, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pope, Greg



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewlsham E)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Primarolo, Dawn
Temple-Morris, Peter


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Raynsford Nick
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Todd, Mark



Touhig, Don


Roche, Mrs Barbara

Trickett, Jon



Truswell, Paul


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Rowlands, Ted
Tyler, Paul


Ruane, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Watts, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Webb, Steve


Sanders, Adrian
White, Brian


Sarwar, Mohammad
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Savidge, Malcolm
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Shepherd, Richard
Wills, Michael


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wood, Mike


Singh, Marsha
Woolas, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)



Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Mr. Eric Forth and


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second Time.

Orders of the Day — Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill (Programme)

Mr. Timms: I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Security Contributions (Share Options) Bill—

Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 1st February 2001.
3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

The programme motion proposes that the Standing Committee be brought to a conclusion on 1 February. We consider that appropriate because it will give sufficient time for up to four sittings in Committee during the week commencing 29 January, although we think that we are likely to need a maximum of two sittings. However, the Programming Sub-Committee will consider the detailed timetable and may decide that it will be necessary to sit more frequently than usual. The arrangements for the programming of later stages of the Bill will be decided by the House at a later time, in the light of the experience in Committee. I commend the motion to the House.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Eric Forth: We are just beginning to get properly to grips with the full horrors of this iniquitous new process that the Government have inflicted on the House. These debates play an important part in providing the House with the ability to explore what is now the relationship between the Government and the House of Commons, and to explore how the legislative process is supposed to work under the dispensation that is so wrongly called modernisation. The programme motions and the debates surrounding them have started to provide an important opportunity for the House to consider whether the Government's approach to the legislative process is acceptable or satisfactory.
The Minister said that, in his opinion, it would be sufficient for the Standing Committee to have completed consideration of the Bill by 1 February, and that he envisaged four Committee sittings. We do not know whether four sittings will be adequate; we cannot know that at this stage. The big difference that has taken place between the way in which the House used to work and the way in which it now has to work is that the Government take it upon themselves arbitrarily to decide how long a Standing Committee will take.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is another feature to this question? It is that very short Standing Committees make it much more difficult for those outside the House to make representations on the content of the Bill at a time that is relevant to the Committee's consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. It is typical that the Government do not care whether right hon. and hon. Members have a proper opportunity to consider a Bill. However, they care even

less whether anyone outside the House has an adequate opportunity to make representations or to attend Committee sittings, thus allowing that iterative process, to which we had become used in the past, between members of the Committee and legitimate outside interests who wish to play their part in the Committee's considerations.
The Government say that, in their view, the legislative process—the scrutiny of legislation by the House—will be completed within a certain, very short, period of time. That is the new arrangement that we are supposed to accept. It is quite different from the arrangement that we knew before, in which it was assumed that the legislative process would take as long as was properly required for the Bill to be considered and amended before being brought back to the Floor of the House on Report. The Government now say that they know how long Members of the House will need to consider our legislation.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Was not that the most revealing remark by the Minister, to which my right hon. Friend has drawn the House's attention? It was—no doubt involuntarily—an extremely revealing insight into the Government's state of mind. Is it not clear that, in the Government's perception, the legislature will examine legislation only to the extent—and in a form—decided in advance by the Executive? What kind of balance in the constitution does that leave us with?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct. As we proceed down this path—we are still in the early stages of the new dispensation—we see more and more clearly the arrogance of Ministers in taking it on themselves to decide how long scrutinising legislation will take.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend was present last night when we debated another timetable motion and will remember the justification given by the Minister for Public Health for a time limit that will expire on 8 February. She said that, in her opinion, the House has sufficient time to consider that Bill. Does not that reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies)?

Mr. Forth: Yes. The legislative process is clearly being run on the basis of Ministers' opinions. Worse than that, although the Minister can say, as the motion tells us, that, in the Government's view, the House of Commons can have only until 1 February properly to consider the Bill, we have not even been given full information. We do not know what the secret Programming Sub-Committee—which, needless to say, will be dominated by the Government—will say about the time that the Government will allow the Committee to sit and deliberate. First, the Government tell us the end date for deliberations. Then, the Government-dominated Programming Sub-Committee will decide how long each day and each sitting will last.

Mr. John Redwood: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the different treatment that we receive from different junior Ministers who represent the Executive? Today, the junior Minister graciously let us into the secret of how many Committee sittings the Government want and even said that there could be another two, according to unspecified criteria. That is a


slight improvement on what we usually get, which is no information at all about what the Executive have decided. We now have a little more knowledge of the time available and I am grateful for that, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that this debate should not be taking place because the Executive should not tell the House how long it can debate such matters.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend is obviously in a generous mood today because he has been much kinder to the Government and the Minister than I am disposed to be. The Minister made the rather casual remark that only two Committee sittings are needed, presumably because these matters are so trivial and his Bill so good that scrutiny is not required. I do not consider that to be a concession; it is a gratuitous insult to the House, the legislative process and the members of the Committee. Of course, we do not yet know who they will be.
Another factor is that, given that we do not know who will be a member of the Committee or how much legitimate outside interest there will be, we cannot possibly know how many amendments are likely to be tabled. We do not know how long the sittings will be because the secretive Programming Sub-Committee has yet to meet—dominated as it will be by the Government. All in all, we are being asked simply to accept the Government's view of how their legislation should be scrutinised by the legislature. Surely that is an insult to both the history of the House and its every tradition.
As we know, the Government rammed the changes through, though they did not have all-party support by any means, and here we are, living with the results of that process. A lot of the principles behind and the approaches to scrutiny, which most of us have held dear for as long as we have had the privilege of being Members of the House, have simply been thrown overboard and replaced by procedures introduced by a Government who are apparently so afraid of their measures being scrutinised that they want to diminish the scrutiny process to an intolerable extent. That is the inevitable outcome of such motions.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that everybody realises that the Government have an enormous majority and can do exactly what they want in the House? Some of us were Members when another Government had a large majority of 144, which was not as big as the majority of the current Government. None the less, that previous Government recognised that the House had its rights and that the Opposition had theirs. Matters were resolved by agreement, but that has gone out of the window. Does my right hon. Friend recognise a constitutional change here?

Mr. Forth: Yes, I do indeed. Only by the House taking every one of the few opportunities left to explore those matters—which, fortunately, the motion allows us to do—will we be able to expose that change for what it is. It is part and parcel of a process that we have witnessed for nearly four years—the systematic dismantling of all the mechanisms on which our electors thought they could rely to ensure that legislative proposals were scrutinised.

Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend should perhaps remind the House that the motion

constitutes a guillotine on when a Bill leaves Committee. Not so very long ago, no Government would introduce a guillotine until an issue had been debated in Committee for 90 or 100 hours. There is, I am afraid, no such criterion in the motion that we are discussing.

Mr. Forth: Memory tells me that in the 1980s, in the case of a substantial Bill, the benchmark was nearer 150 hours in Committee. Indeed, that was reckoned to be barely sufficient before a guillotine could even be contemplated.
I can only assume that the Government have introduced the measures with which we are now forced to live because they are both contemptuous of the parliamentary process and afraid of their legislation being properly scrutinised. The motion proposes, rather patronisingly, that
The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
That gives us a flavour of what we now face.
In earlier times, a Committee would by convention spend the morning of its first sitting deliberating on future sittings and considering how much time it would need. It would then adjourn in order to give its members time to reflect on the Bill, and perhaps to table amendments. None of that will be possible now, because the Government are in such a rush and are so anxious to push the legislation through to prevent it from being properly scrutinised.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has touched on the question of amendments. Should the House not be reminded that, in the week permitted by the motion, the Government will not have time properly to formulate amendments in Committee, as is necessary, and will have to rely on amendments made in the other place—amendments which, inevitably, will not be properly debated in this, the elected Chamber?

Mr. Forth: That leaves me with a personal dilemma. Part of me naturally wants to ensure that the House of Commons, accountable as it is to voters—probably very soon now—will give the most effective scrutiny to, in particular, Bills with a financial or tax content or connotation. Another part of me, however, is beginning to recognise and almost welcome the fact that—given our increasing inability, under the guillotines that the Government are imposing on our legislative process, to scrutinise legislation fully and allow for amendments—the onus will be transferred to another place. It will be for another place to give even closer and more rigorous scrutiny to legislation, because the Government's constraints have prevented us from scrutinising it in the same way. So there is a glimmer of light.
I shall vote against the motion unless the Minister says something to persuade me not to do so, but I shall leave the Chamber with a spring in my step. I feel that there is potential for the other place to be encouraged to exercise its duties and responsibilities even more vigorously than it has in the past, as a direct result of the Government's attempts, through motions such as this, to restrict and limit the power of this House to scrutinise legislation effectively.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to focus on what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). This is the second occasion in a week on which we have considered a timetable motion of this kind, and once again the motion is, in my view, an affront. My right hon. Friend presented the arguments against it with great clarity, and I therefore propose merely to summarise them, although I hope to emphasise one or two.
For a start, we simply do not know whether an end date of 1 February is in any way appropriate. We cannot know that until we know how long the Committee will sit, what its members will deem to be important, and—perhaps even more significant—what people outside the Chamber will deem to be important, and will seek to communicate to those members. It is arrogant and wrong of the Government to put an end date on the Committee.
The measure precludes proper scrutiny. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, this is a complicated Bill with tax and national insurance connotations. It is inevitable that Committee members will look to those outside, constituents and interested bodies to make representations on the Bill so that they can table amendments to address the issues. Being realistic, we know that people take a little time to get moving and an end date of 1 February will make it impossible for people outside properly to address the Bill.
A further point is the status of the other place. Governments always amend Bills. I have been responsible for many Bills and I know that it is the practice of Governments to amend Bills in Committee. They must, because no Bill is perfect, particularly a complicated Bill of this kind. Thus the Government will determine that amendments are to be made and will not be able to formulate them within the time scale for the Committee. They will then seek to table amendments in another place, which is an unelected House dealing with quasi-financial matters. That is very unsatisfactory. The Government will come back to this House—probably on another timetable motion—and we, the elected Chamber, will never have a proper opportunity to discuss amendments.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon and learned Friend said that detail would be left to an unelected House, which, by tradition and constitutional convention, has nothing to do with taxation. This Bill is concerned with national insurance, which is extremely close to taxation. Is the other place even entitled to amend such a Bill?

Mr. Hogg: Strictly speaking, it is entitled, as a matter of law and constitutional practice, but it is thoroughly undesirable. My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right about the status of the Bill. When Bills of this House attract substantive amendments, they should be amended in this place and not in the other place, unless it is absolutely essential.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) reminded the House that, when our party was in government, we did not move timetable motions in Committee until a long period of time had elapsed. My benchmark was 100 hours; that is in accordance with my right hon. Friend's recollection, although a little short of that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. However, we recognised that there had to be

a long period before that was appropriate. In our minds, we knew that we could not properly timetable a Committee until it had become plain that what was going on was an unreasonable obstruction in Committee.
The Government are proposing timetables of but a few hours on matters of great complexity and importance. That is shutting down on the legislative process. If we do that, the country will discover in time that legislation is going through the House of Commons that has never properly been scrutinised. As the acquiesence of the electorate depends, at least in part, on a belief that legislation has been properly scrutinised, we will be tampering with the foundations of accountable government and democracy.

Sir Peter Emery: Two or three weeks ago, when the Government proposed the procedure, they gave the assurance that enough time would be given for the Opposition to table amendments and for each clause of the Bill to be properly debated. They are reneging on what they said to the House.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is right, although I am bound to say that the fact that the Government are reneging causes me no surprise. We are dealing with an essentially despotic and tyrannical Government, although the country as a whole does not recognise that yet. Our business, as legislators, is to draw to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, through you, to the attention of a wider public, that democracy is being served ill by those on the Government Front Bench.
I have no doubt that timetable motions will be put down regularly. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be opposing them on grounds of principle.

5 pm

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Sophocles was said to have walked around Athens talking to everybody he met and taking note of their opinions. He then sought to regale his fellow Athenians with exactly the degree of veracity that one gets from a wide selection of citizens.
What worries me about the increasing habit of timetabling everything is that any Parliament—however it is brought together—must rely on support from the citizenry. I am extremely worried that we are increasingly—for what the managers of Government business probably think are perfectly acceptable reasons—going ahead on the in-built assumption that legislation is simply here to be rolled through the House of Commons and the other place with the greatest speed and the smallest number of alterations that will be acceptable to the Government. I am afraid that I do not take that view, and I do not believe that it can be sustained for any length of time.
I do not entirely go along with the emotional and colourful language occasionally used on the Conservative Benches about the iniquities of the Government. While I am prepared to call them all sorts of things, despotic is not one of them. Despots, on the whole, tend to be reasonably efficient. Seriously, it saddens me that we are getting to the point where no Labour Member is prepared to say that the procedures of the House of Commons have been developed because there has to be give and take across the Chamber and an examination of various ideas. Above


all, there has to be an examination of laws. We are talking not about union debates or dinner party disagreements but about laws, which not only have the power to carry sanctions but which affect the people who sent us here.
I do not want to go on about this matter tonight; I simply want to record that, in the past three weeks, there has been a constant procession of timetable motions. We can call them what we like: guillotines, which is a more accurate description, or timetables. We can say that the House accepted all these "reforms" and suggest that somehow this is an improvement and a modernisation.
Some of my colleagues occasionally give me the impression that they would rather there were no debate on any subject at all—[Interruption.] That refers to colleagues on both sides of the House. There are people who, when they are in Government, think that it is a good idea that the House of Commons does not debate the iniquities of the legislation before them. When I listen now to those who protest most about why we are allowing this to happen, I remember what they were like when they were Ministers. Once we let a monster out of the pot it is very difficult to get it back in.
I do not believe that there will be a change of Government in the remainder of my parliamentary career, but such changes do happen in this country, and Conservative Members will be very quick to learn from our behaviour and to pick up those habits that they so roundly condemn. That is why I say to my Government colleagues: please think again. Do not assume that God is always in our corner; occasionally he may desert us. Do not assume that we always know right from wrong and always have absolute right on our side. That is not the case.
Above all, please remember that legislation that goes through the House like a runaway train frequently comes off the rails at considerable speed and does great damage. The House should bear that in mind. We are increasingly losing sight of the object that a democratic Parliament should keep closest to its heart: legislation works when it is thought about, when it is real, when it represents the views of the ordinary citizen and, most of all, when it is not imposed without real thought and proper consideration.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: In a sense, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is wrong: the Government have moved to a certainty about procedures. The matter is no longer open to debate. The Government are about swank and spin; through their measures on the procedures of the House, they demonstrate their complete contempt for the very existence of the House of Commons.
Such measures owe nothing whatever to reasoned thought. How do we know what Back Benchers think about the legislation that the Committee will discuss in what the Minister decides will probably be no more than two sittings? Nevertheless, through the Government's graciousness and their relentless and overweening majority, they may give us four sittings. I have not been consulted; in truth, no Member has been consulted. We have not been asked whether aspects of the measure cause us concern, whether we want to develop any points or to take soundings among interested groups in our constituencies.
All the arguments that are being made are old ones. We used to impose guillotines because there was an insuperable blockage in normal procedural matters. During my time as a Member of the House, such motions have moved from being the exception and have become accustomed procedure Before Christmas, at the behest of the Government, the majority party imposed on us these ludicrous and contemptuous arrangements for the review of Bills.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend puts most eloquently the arguments against timetable motions. Will he remind the House that he makes those arguments from the perspective of someone who actually approves of the Bill? Perhaps that adds greater force to his comments.

Mr. Shepherd: In the House, we all know that the matter is not whether an individual approves of a Bill; it is to safeguard the processes whereby a Bill is scrutinised. Other points of view may be brought to bear on measures and that may convince me that my original position was wrong. That is the tolerance in our legislative process.
The Government are now so divorced from the House of Commons that they do not need the House at all. They have reduced us to the absurdity of trying to forecast magically the course of a Committee—the amendments that will be tabled and the length of time to be taken up in debate. In truth, they are not interested. Indeed, the process on motions such as this has been truncated from the intolerable length of three hours to 45 minutes for the discussion of the grievances of hon. Members who think that they may not be able discuss a Bill during its proceedings. That is one of the great modernisations and improvements.
This procedure is a farce. It is an absurd assertion by an arrogant Government. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich made a misjudgment in her comments; the attitude and arrogance of the Executive are beyond redemption. There are many decent Members on both sides of the House. There can be no pleasure in the fact that the House has been dragooned into a 45-minute debate; in essence, to approve the motion.
One can see the exasperation on the faces of Ministers and Government Whips—this is all so trivial. They ask: why do we not nod the motion through? Why bother to seek approval? Why do we not conceive, in the brilliant Modernisation Committee, a Standing Order that gives the Government the right—because they have claimed it—to get their business? That was never an historic concept of the House. The House examined and consented to business, but it could also reject it.
Such ideas do not even enter the mind of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as he proposes these arrangements without ever having asked for the views of Back-Bench colleagues on either side of the House. That is why I oppose the motion. It crystallises something that I have resented and regretted all my life. From being an occasional necessity, such arrangements have become the instrument of the Executive's dominance over the Chamber and show their contempt for the House.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: This is a very serious matter indeed, and the country needs to understand it. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member


for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, and the tone in which she said it. I have a high regard for the Minister and have served with him on a long and carefully thought-through Committee on the financial services. I am sure that he would not propose such measures if they were not being forced on the House from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer downwards, given the Government's attitude.
It has been said that the Government are despotic and tyrannical, but those words sound old fashioned and out of date. The Government are certainly arrogant; they are bullying the House. It is unnecessary for them to bully the House. The Government are also bullying the country and the other place, and they are producing very bad legislation.
Why have the Government introduced the Bill? There can be no argument about the fact that they are incompetent. They are amending legislation that they introduced only in past year or so, because provisions that were not properly thought through now have to be changed. To some extent, the changes that they propose are sensible and, therefore, we suggested in our reasoned amendment that they needed modifying, but we did not oppose the whole Bill. However, the Bill needs to be carefully scrutinised not only by the House—as can be seen on television around the world, by those with Sky and so on—but by those in the City of London, the CBI and financial services generally, as well as by those in all the places where small businesses congregate and consider such matters. They must have time to propose amendments.
Let the country know what is proposed in this small, technical, but important Bill. The Government will ram the Bill through. The Committee is supposed to consider the Bill carefully and constructively, but it must take no more than eight days to do so. This week will be taken up in trying to determine exactly when the Bill will be debated in Committee. That effectively leaves only 30 January and 1 February for the Bill to be considered in Committee. That is five and seven days, or six and eight days ahead, so the small business groups, the City groups or the taxation accountants, who have already helped us on Second Reading, have no chance to consider whether the Government have got it right and to propose constructive amendments. That is very bad government indeed.
Let everyone know that the Government are thoroughly unreasonable and that, day after day, they are timetabling—guillotining—every Bill that they introduced in this short Session before the general election. They are throwing aside the traditions that have existed for the 22 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, when my party has had two very large majorities.
Let us not consider the proposals blindly. We can modernise sensibly. There have been some suggestions for sensible modernisation. In the past, Committees used to sit for 80 or 150 hours in Committee before a guillotine motion was introduced. Those hours were often used stupidly. The then Opposition felt that they could do nothing but ramble on indefinitely because time was their only weapon, and only the first or second clause of a Bill was debated. However, we have exactly the same amount time available proportionately—there are the same number of days in the weeks and the same hours in the day as there were in the 1980s, when such a Bill would

never have needed to be guillotined. We could have used those 80 hours constructively on getting the legislation right.
From the top, the Government—from the Chief Whip, the Leader of House and the Prime Minister himself—are unnecessarily denying Parliament the opportunity to give legislation serious scrutiny. That is a disgrace. The country is being misgoverned; the House is being mismanaged; the Government are responsible, and the country should hold them to account for it at the election.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I strongly agree with all that has been said so far in the debate, including that by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). However, something she said should perhaps be corrected, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) could have done so, but from personal modesty, which we all know is one of his qualities, he refrained from doing so. It is not true that to say there was no opposition to the introduction of timetable motions under the previous Government. Indeed, such motions were opposed in principle.
My hon. Friend courageously opposed the principle of the programme motions introduced by the Administration formed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). However, those motions had been introduced after perhaps 100 or more hours of debate in Committee. Such arrangements have existed since the 19th century, but they were emergency provisions intended to deal with abuse. They were used to timetable Bills that were clearly being obstructed. The Government have turned those emergency powers into a weapon. They were intended to be used exceptional circumstances in response to abuses, but the Executive now use them regularly. Just as Governments around the world have abused emergency provisions to seize power, overthrow democracy and so on, those powers are being similarly turned into a regular, routine procedure, which the Government effectively use to suppress the legislature's rights.
Those hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon—indeed, those in the Public Gallery—have been here on an unfortunate, but memorable occasion. I could hardly believe something that the Minister said; I have never heard the like in my 13 and a half years as a Member. Speaking from the Front Bench on behalf of the Government, he suggested that the Committee would need only two sittings to deal with the Bill, but in a moment of generosity, the Government were prepared to concede to four.

Mr. Hogg: I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend was in the Chamber last night, but as I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), such suggestions are becoming the norm for Ministers. During yesterday's timetable motion, the Minister for Public Health said that only two weeks would be sufficient to consider the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill in Committee. It is now the habit of Ministers to form a view on how much time is required in Committee.

Mr. Davies: Unfortunately, I have been aware for some time that the procedure has been abused and that timetable


motions are not the exception but the rule. However, until this afternoon, I had not heard a Minister say, with such brutal frankness, that he would determine exactly how long a Committee needs to do its job. Let us briefly examine the statement that the Committee will need only two sittings, or perhaps four if it wants. What does that mean? How can the Minister possibly know that the Committee requires two sittings, rather than any other number?
The Minister is responsible for introducing the Bill, so he presumably thinks that it is perfect. If he had been aware that something was wrong with it, that it had some shortcomings or that it contained inadequacies or contradictions, presumably his duty would have been to get those points right before presenting it to the House. So, in his mind, the House needs no time at all to consider the Bill. He certainly cannot determine how long it needs, but he has said that it needs two days. Let us suppose that, in his modesty, he accepts that the House needs time to consider the Bill, that the job that he and the Executive have done cannot be perfect, that we should not live under an elective dictatorship, that there should be a balance between the Executive and legislature and that the legislature still has a role. If he accepts all that, how can he possibly determine whether the Bill should have two, four or 24 days in Committee?
The Minister cannot anticipate the Bill's shortcomings. If he could do, it would not have those shortcomings. If there are other difficulties that he has not anticipated, how can he possibly determine the time frame that Parliament will need to consider the issues? Therefore, his remarks on behalf of the Executive were not only arrogant and unacceptable, but they were meaningless. They just show that he had not begun to think through the issues before he tried to impose the timetable motion on us. That is extremely sad.
The Government have shown contempt not only for Parliament, but for the 56 million people of this country who still believe that Parliament has a role in the legislative process. If members of the public have a point to make about impending legislation, they look forward to the Committee stage as the only moment when they will have an opportunity to express their ideas to Committee members. The public hope that the Committee will take those ideas seriously and that they will be examined and debated. Clearly, that process is dead; it no longer takes place. All the people with faith in Parliament are under a childlike and naive illusion. That is a sad fact, but we must recognise it.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am glad that I shall have more than 10 seconds to speak, which is how long I had when I spoke in the debate on the programme motion on the Armed Forces Bill.
I agree with the arguments put by my right hon. and hon. Friends and particularly with those put by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). The Executive simply sees Parliament ramming legislation through without any amendments of worth being tabled by Members of the legislature. I sometimes wonder whether we are a legislature at all. The way in which the Government have used the programme motions illustrates that.
I want to consider the position of individual Members of Parliament. I wanted to be on the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill, because I know something about the subject and wanted to make a contribution in such a Committee. I have no idea whether I will be appointed to the Standing Committee considering this Bill, but I could be. I am not an expert on social security and national insurance contributions, so it is quite likely that I will be appointed, particularly given the way in which the Government carry on. They are likely to appoint Labour Back Benchers with no knowledge of the subject, because that is precisely what they did on the Armed Forces Bill. The Select Committee on that Bill for which Government Members, in particular, voted comprises seven Members from the governing party and none of them has served in the armed forces or on the Select Committee on Defence. Only two Opposition Back Benchers will be on the Committee considering the Bill.
The Committee structure for the Armed Forces Bill provides one occasion in which a Select Committee can take evidence, go on visits and, to a degree, hold the Government to account. That Bill is different from other Bills. However, the arrangements for this year's Bill show the Government's arrogance.
If a Back Bencher were appointed to the Standing Committee considering this Bill, he would presumably be appointed tomorrow. Therefore, if he is not an expert on the subject, he would have a short time in which to be able to understand the complicated issues involved. I served on the Committee considering the Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000. Even though I was familiar with military law, I had to sit down with a wet towel on my head to work out my own amendments. I tabled about 100 amendments that were not suggested by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. It took a great deal of work and concentration for me to be able to contribute meaningfully in Committee.
I am a not an expert on the subject covered by this Bill and to invite me to sit on a Committee that would have to complete its consideration by 1 February would be a disgrace. It would be a contempt of the House and its individual Members. The motion should be opposed.

Mr. Timms: With the leave of House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not recognise the characterisation of our procedures that has been so passionately denounced by —
It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 152.

Division No. 76]
[5.25 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Banks, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret



Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew F


Atherton, Ms Candy
Benton, Joe


Atkins, Charlotte
Bermingham, Gerald


Bailey, Adrian
Berry, Roger






Best, Harold
Goggins, Paul


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blackman, Liz
Grocott, Bruce


Blears, Ms Hazel
Grogan, John


Borrow, David
Hain, Peter


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Bradshaw, Ben
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hanson, David


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Healey, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Burden, Richard
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hendrick, Mark


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hepburn, Stephen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heppell, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith


Caplin, Ivor
Hoey, Kate


Casale, Roger
Howells, Dr Kim


Caton, Martin
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cawsey, Ian
Hume, John


Chaytor, David
Hurst, Alan


Clapham, Michael
Hutton, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Clelland, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clwyd, Ann
Jamieson, David


Coaker, Vernon
Jenkins, Brian


Coffey, Ms Ann
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Coleman, Iain
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Colman, Tony
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Joyce, Eric


Corston, Jean
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cousins, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cranston, Ross
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Crausby, David
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Cummings, John
Kemp, Fraser


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)



Khabra, Piara S


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kidney, David


Dalyell, Tam
Kilfoyle, Peter


Darvill, Keith
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davidson, Ian
Lammy, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Dawson, Hilton
Laxton, Bob


Denham, John
Lepper, David


Dismore, Andrew
Leslie, Christopher


Dobbin, Jim
Levitt, Tom


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Doran, Frank
Linton, Martin


Dowd, Jim
Lock, David


Drew, David
Love, Andrew


Drown, Ms Julia
McAvoy, Thomas


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Edwards, Huw
Macdonald, Calum


Efford, Clive
McDonnell, John


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McFall, John


Ennis, Jeff
McIsaac, Shona


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
McNulty, Tony


Flint, Caroline
MacShane, Denis


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McWaltor, Tony


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McWilliam, John


Galloway, George
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mallaber Judy


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Martlew Eric


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Maxton, John





Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Singh, Marsha


Merron, Gillian
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moffatt, Laura
Snape, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Moran, Ms Margaret
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Spellar, John


Mountford, Kali
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mudie, George
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stringer, Graham


Olner, Bill
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Perham, Ms Linda
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Plaskitt, James
Timms, Stephen


Pollard, Kerry
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Todd, Mark


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Truswell, Paul


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)
Wareing, Robert N



Watts, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
White, Brian


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rooney, Terry
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rowlands, Ted



Ruane, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Joan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wills, Michael


Sarwar, Mohammad
Winnick, David


Savidge, Malcolm
Wood, Mike


Sedgemore, Brian
Woolas, Phil


Shaw, Jonathan
Worthington, Tony


Sheerman, Barry
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shipley, Ms Debra
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.


NOES


Allan, Richard
Butterfill, John


Amess, David
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Chidgey, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chope, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Clappison, James


Ballard, Jackie
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Collins, Tim


Bercow, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cotter, Brian


Blunt, Crispin
Cran, James


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brazier, Julian
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)



Donaldson, Jeffrey


Breed, Colin
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan Smith, Iain


Burnett, John
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Evans, Nigel


Burstow, Paul
Fabricant, Michael






Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fearn, Ronnie
Madel, Sir David


Flight, Howard
Major, Rt Hon John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maples, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Fox, Dr Liam
Moore, Michael


Fraser, Christopher
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Gale, Roger
Oaten, Mark


Garnier, Edward
Öpik, Lembit


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Page, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Paice, James


Gidley, Sandra
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Gill, Christopher
Randall, John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Green, Damian
Rendel, David


Greenway, John
Robathan, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Ruffley, David


Hammond, Philip
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Harris, Dr Evan
St Aubyn, Nick


Harvey, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Hawkins, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hayes, John
Shepherd, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Soames, Nicholas


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Horam, John
Spring, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Stunell, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Jenkin, Bernard
Syms, Robert


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey 
Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Taylor, Sir Teddy



Keetch, Paul
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Key, Robert
Tonge, Dr Jenny


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Trend, Michael


Kirkwood, Archy
Tyler, Paul


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tyrie, Andrew


Lansley, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Leigh, Edward
Walter, Robert


Letwin, Oliver
Waterson, Nigel


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Webb, Steve


Lidington, David
Wells, Bowen


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Livsey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Llwyd, Elfyn
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Loughton, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Luff, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tellers for the Noes:


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Mr. James Gray and


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Business of the House

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,

That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.

The motion is necessary to enable paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 14 to function properly. That provision states:
Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on thirteen Fridays in each session to be appointed by the House.
The motion to appoint those days has been on the Order Paper for some time. Clearly, some right hon. and hon. Members want to debate the matter. It is an important principle that private Members have time on the Floor of the House specifically for their business. The dates allocated by the motion are designed to give private Members' Fridays a similar pattern to those in preceding Sessions: seven Fridays for Second Readings, followed by a gap and a more leisurely series of dates for remaining stages.
It is important that that time is available. Although private Members' Bills can be derided as ineffective, a surprising number ate enacted each year. In the years between 1964 and 1993, 10 to 15 private Members' Bills, on average, were passed each Session. Twenty-one such Bills were passed in 1996 –97, when some were given Government time, and even in recent years, six or seven private Members' Bills have reached the statute book each Session.
Private Members' Bills have tidied up the statute book. The Lord Chancellor (Terms of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974 made it possible for the post of Lord Chancellor to be held by a Catholic. Private Members' Bills have dealt with matters that affect small groups. The Motorcycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 permits Sikhs to wear turbans, rather than helmets. When we drive past a gaggle of riding school children all securely helmeted, we see the results of the Horses (Protective Headgear for Young Riders) Act 1990. Private Members' Bills have extended the effectiveness of the House. The National Audit Office owes its existence to the National Audit Act 1983—a private Member's Bill.

Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for giving way. Will he explain to the House why then are not more dates earlier, when they might not be damaged by an election, and more dates later, which would not be available if the most likely election date, early May, materialised?

Mr. Tipping: I have learned one thing during my time in the House: never to speculate on the date of an election. There is every possibility that the House could sit for another year and more.
There is an honourable tradition whereby private Members' Bills have been used to force Governments to


face social issues that they would rather duck. The book "How Parliament Works" notes:
Private Members' Acts have brought about the abolition of the death penalty, the legislation on abortion and homosexuality and the end of theatre censorship.
Even when they are defeated, private Members' Bills can have huge influence. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill may have been defeated in the 1993 –94 Session, but the Government were forced to introduce their own Disability Discrimination Bill in the next Session. I am sure that hon. Members can think of further examples.
There have been calls for private Members' Bills to be given a better chance of success. The motion allocates a mere 13 Fridays. Perhaps, some say, the procedure should be relaxed to counterbalance such a limited time. The Procedure Committee considered the matter in 1994–95 and commented at paragraph 18 that
it is a matter for debate whether a majority in the House, not supported by electoral mandate, should be allowed to overcome serious objections from a minority of members on one issue.
It concluded that
any significant change in procedure which enabled a minority to pass through the House a bill inconsistent with the policy objectives of the Government majority is unrealistic and a breach of the conventions under which private Members' bill procedure has operated. Such a change could also have a dangerous consequence in that it would enable the Government majority to use the same procedure to drive through the House a private Member's bill to which there was substantial but minority opposition.
Our motion tonight simply allocates the time required by Standing Orders.
In the past, some private Members' Bills have been taken through all their stages on a single day. Now hon. Members tend to insist that no Bill should be passed without debate. Given the limited time, that reduces the chances of success. Some may argue that the chances of success are so small that it is pointless for the House to approve the motion. However, private Members' Bills and the time allocated to them offer unrivalled opportunities for procedural training and tactics. We all know the need to have our supporters present and correct at 9.30 am and to have sufficient numbers to secure a closure.
However important private Members' Bills are in themselves, and however great the procedural amusement they provide, the key reason why the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 should be implemented remains that Standing Orders allocate the time to private Members and they should be given it. I invite the House to agree to the motion, which will put the Standing Orders into effect.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: It is a pleasure to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary opening the debate on a matter that is clearly important to Back Benchers. Private Members' Bills are peculiarly their province. As the hon. Gentleman said, the motion has been on the Order Paper for some time. It is clear from the presence of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends that they have some anxieties and concerns about the way in which the matter is being presented, about which we shall hear more presently.
I shall not get involved in discussion of the number of days allocated. Those who want to raise their concerns will do so. In view of the fact that the motion has consistently been objected to since it first appeared on the

Order Paper, it is unfortunate that we have not had an earlier opportunity to debate it, so that Back Benchers could express their views. One has the impression that the Government hoped that by reintroducing the motion time and again, the objections would simply go away. [Interruption.] I hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It was apparent that the issue would not go away, as there were matters that needed to be discussed.
On one matter, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that, historically, the purpose of private Members' Bills was to enable Back Benchers to bring before the House matters that would require a considerable degree of unanimity in order to reach the statute book. I was fascinated to hear the hon. Gentleman present an exposé of the reasons for that, with which I heartily concurred.
I hope that I will not be considered to be out of order if I gently point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that having adhered to that policy in respect of the Hunting Bill when it was a private Member's Bill—the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill—and seen it consigned to oblivion by the House for the very reasons that the hon. Gentleman articulated, the Government, for reasons which remain incomprehensible, saw fit to reintroduce it in Government time, when every argument that the hon. Gentleman has just advanced would militate against that. I found that telling. Perhaps at the end of the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary will amplify his remarks. A better justification for not proceeding as the Government did after the failure of a private Member's Bill would be difficult to find.
I am happy to listen carefully to the objections that are likely to be raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends to the number of days allocated and to other matters connected with private Members' Bills and the business of the House.

Mr. Eric Forth: As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out, we have finally got the motion on the Floor of the House, where it belongs, and we have an opportunity to debate it. However, I wonder whether it is too late.
The Government seem to have taken the attitude that such matters are entitled to be nodded through by the House, without proper debate or consideration, and they are learning the hard way that that simply is not the case. When the Government say, "We believe that a certain number of days should be allocated to this or that", they should not assume that the House will acquiesce.
As the debate is entitled "Business of the House", the House should debate it. It is only slightly to the credit of the Minister that he has been brought to the House kicking and screaming, at the last minute, reluctantly to present the matter to the House, when it is far too late to do anything about it.
That is important because the matter was first presented to the House before Christmas. It should have been dealt with then, as there was time for those who opposed it to say why we felt that it was inadequate or inappropriate. We are now at a late date in January. We are asked to agree that the private Member's Bill cycle, to which the Minister alluded, should start very soon, on 2 February,


and that only two days will be allocated in February. The Government care so little about private Members' Bills that we are then to go away for a month before resuming the process on 9 March.
I presume that the Committee of Selection will sit on the Wednesday after the first of the two Fridays, so 14 February would be the first day available for Committee proceedings. Therefore, even if a private Member's Bill were to get a Second Reading in the House on one of the first two Fridays and to get through Committee in one sitting, the first day on which it could possibly come back to the Floor for Report or Third Reading would be 9 March.
Hon. Members who have gone through the private Member's Bill process know that it is not always to their delight or advantage, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) would agree. The Government have taken so long to seek to resolve the matter on the Floor of the House that they have put private Members' Bills in jeopardy. They have taken so long because there may be an election.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say, in his bland way, that we must not discuss whether there is going to be an election. The entire country assumes that there will be an election in April or May. That makes it incumbent on the Government to make more proper provision for private Members' Bills than appears in the motion.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend is being too generous to the Government. The chances are that the House will be dissolved at the end of March. Private Members' legislation has to get through the other place, so it is probable that none will become law in this Session. Is not the motion therefore bogus?

Mr. Forth: If so, it would cause me no loss of sleep. My right hon. and learned Friend is right to remind the House that a private Member's Bill, like any other, must be dealt with in another place. If necessary, it must return to the House of Commons before it reaches the statute book. My point is that holding a general election in April or May—or even June or July—would put at risk all the private Members' Bills that have been balloted.
So casual is the Government's attitude in this matter, as in so many others, that they have allowed a month to pass since the motion first appeared, since when no attention has been paid to it. If we end up with no private Members' Bills in this Session, we shall know whom to blame—the Government. Their attitude to such Bills is hostile, and they kill about 30 or 40 of them every year. I should be happy to provide any hon. Member who so wishes with an analysis.
The Government have dealt with this piece of business very casually. They have assumed that the House will accept everything that they do, but that assumption is false. The debate allows us to say to the Government that they should not assume that they have killed the House of Commons. They have done a pretty good job of strangulation, but the body is not yet quite dead. The House is still capable of exercising some of the powers that have been left to it.
The other message to the Government is that they should not think that they will get away lightly with treating private Members' Bills so casually. My analysis shows that the Government have left private Members' Bills with little or no chance of reaching the statute book. To many hon. Members, that will seem a great pity.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for, in effect, triggering this debate. He has exposed the fact that the Government do not want any private Members' Bills to pass through the House in this Session.
The motion first appeared on the Order Paper before Christmas. I was among those hon. Members who objected to it. We wanted the matter to be brought to the Floor of the House much earlier, so that it could be discussed fully. However, the Government waited for a month before the opinion of the House could be heard. The result is that no private Members' legislation will succeed this Session—unless the Government approve of the Bill involved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst analysed the timetable, and he is right to say that the House would be dissolved near the end of March if there is to be a general election in May, which seems probable. Any legislation would have to get through Second Reading, Committee and Report stages, and then go to the other place. Lords amendments, if any, would then have to be considered in the House of Commons, and then Royal Assent would have to be granted. It would not be possible for any private Member's Bill that was one whit controversial to get through that process by the end of March. The Government are seeking to frustrate the passage of private Members' legislation. We need to identify the bogosity—if that is a word—of the Government's attitude.
My right hon. Friend and I agree about many things, such as the hateful nature of the Government, but we differ about the desirability of private Members' legislation. My right hon. Friend is a great strangler of such legislation, and would say that he is broadly against it. I am broadly in favour of the process, but I am careful about which Bills I support. I am in favour of the process because it gives hon. Members the opportunity to identify issues that are important to themselves or to interest groups.

Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of what Sir Winston Churchill said in 1931? When asked about private Members' Bills, he said:
I am not very anxious to help private Members' Bills. I have seen a great many of them brought forward, and in most cases it was a very good thing that they did not pass. I think there ought to be a very effective procedure for making it difficult for all sorts of happy thoughts to be carried on to the Statute Book.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend, the great strangler, makes a very good case. Most private Members' Bills need to be treated with great caution, and I have voted against an awful lot of them because it is awfully easy for


people's wishful thinking, in an ill-attended House on a Friday, to go through the statutory process and suddenly become law.

Mr. Forth: Not any more.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend, the great strangler, makes it less probable than it used to be, and I am very glad that he does, but it does not alter the fact that the private Members' process is a good one for identifying issues. Usually, private Members are wrong when it comes to the expression of those solutions in statutory form, but they are often right in identifying the issue, which then triggers debate and may trigger more sensible legislation. Occasionally, the private Members' process is a good vehicle for passing very minor measures, which otherwise would not attract Government time, but which are passed because the private Members' system provides an opportunity. For those reasons I am in favour of the process, although I view with concern many of the Bills that emerge from it.
That brings me to my next point. Thirteen days on which private Members' legislation will get precedence is not enough, especially as we have a Government who are over-mighty and oppressive of the interests of minorities. I would like private Members' legislation to get precedence on more days, not because I particularly want the Bills to be passed, but because I want private Members to have an opportunity to articulate their concerns on matters that arise from their constituencies or matters of national interest.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has given us the opportunity to highlight these issues. The motion could have gone through on the nod. The Government would have preferred it to do so, because they do not like debate. We on the Back Benches, who are standing up for the privileges of Parliament, do like debate, and because debate in the House is being so severely truncated by Ministers, they must expect us to take every opportunity to debate issues of importance.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) was responsible for the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. She will remember that I strongly disagreed with that when we debated it, but it was an example of a matter that it was proper for a Back Bencher to raise. I disapproved of the outcome, I disapproved of the Bill, I protested against it and I protest now, but that type of thing should be encouraged because it enables Members to express their views and those of their constituents.
I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has triggered this debate, and I hope that he will trigger many more such debates. I am playing my modest part in encouraging that debate.

Mr. John Redwood: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to the extent that they were saying the same things—which, on the whole, they were.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I believe that we have too much legislation. The limited number of forms of conduct that are

unacceptable and need to be made crimes and offences are already crimes and offences, and there is no need to add unduly to the list, using up much parliamentary time and incurring great expense.
Most of the legislation that is passed under the present Government is vexatious, regulatory, meddlesome, intervening and interfering, which is why my right hon. and hon. Friends usually vote against it. I would not welcome the introduction of much more similar legislation in the shape of private Members' Bills connived at or encouraged by the Government.
However, if I had to choose whether the time of the House should be a little more occupied by the ideas of private Members or by those of the Government, I would prefer the former, because it is just conceivable that one of my colleagues would come up with an interesting idea that did need attention in a legislative way, whereas I find that Her Majesty's Government usually comes up with ideas that are vexatious, meddlesome and intervening.

Mr. Hogg: The more days private Members have, the fewer days are available for the vexatious, oppressive and tyrannical.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. and learned Friend was ahead of me in my argument. The great advantage of allowing more private Members' days is that it might limit the number of Government days, and so reduce the amount of meddlesome and unnecessary legislation that is introduced.
I object to the way in which modernisation has been steamrollered through the House. The motion could have been discussed before Christmas or two or three weeks ago, when the debate would have been more relevant and timely and more options would have been available to the Government in the light of the feelings of the House. We are discussing it today because the Government have decided to steamroller and dragoon; to cheat the House of Commons of proper debate and scrutiny; and to decide, of their own initiative, what we shall discuss and when, instead of allowing the usual channels—the normal dialogue between the main parties in the House—to settle what is important and what is not so important and to make progress with Government business, given that the Opposition have a right to a certain amount of choice as to what to highlight and what to debate.
The normal procedures have broken down because the Government have behaved in a typically arrogant and overweening way, and some Opposition Members will continue to debate these procedural matters until the Government understand that trust has been broken and needs to be restored.
I regard it as part of the Government's cynical plot to sideline the powers of the House, and the rights of the individual Members of the House, to choose a very limited number of dates for private Members' business before a likely general election at the beginning of May, and to choose another series of dates that will obviously fall, given that the election now looks almost certain to be on that date or slightly earlier.
The Government have allowed the expectations to build up. They have not attempted to dampen those expectations or to suggest that there are other serious dates, so this afternoon the House must conclude that they have cynically chosen a series of dates so that, as my right


hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, no private Member's Bill can conceivably pass—unless the Government suddenly get behind one and make additional arrangements to dragoon a measure through the House and the other place very quickly indeed.
It is all part of the pattern of a party that thinks that, because it has so many seats in the House of Commons, it has the right to do what it likes when it likes, without courtesy, without discussion, without proper debate and without asking those of us who represent the other interests and viewpoints of the nation what we consider to be relevant and how legislation might be improved or modified.
One thing that I used to value, as a Minister of the Crown, was that dialogue in Committee and in hard-fought debates on the Floor of the House, when the Chair would allow—and the Minister was happy to accept the ruling of the Chair—the debate to run on because the Opposition had a serious point. I thought that it was my job as a Minister either to have what I thought was a better argument and argue it through, or to give a bit of ground because I or my officials had missed something important and the legislation needed to be modified. I never thought that it was my job to get angry with the Opposition and say that they had no right to a life or existence and no right to a view, and that we would immediately impose a guillotine to ensure that we could not debate those things.
The art of being a good Minister is to tempt, persuade and cajole the House into agreement, and work out a way of living with the Opposition, so that the Opposition may have their day or two in court on the things that really matter to them and, as a result, are more prepared to allow the Government's business to pass.

Mr. Richard Burden: I have something of a vested interest in the matter, having drawn No. 1 in the private Members' Bill ballot. I have been following what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been saying and their objections to the dates in the motion and the amount of time allowed. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, and the other Opposition Members who have spoken might like to express their views, too.
If, theoretically—accepting that hon. Members have objections to the dates and the frequency—a private Member's Bill was introduced to the House that secured public support, and on which there was agreement in the House that it was a sensible measure, would it be sensible, in the interests of the dialogue that the right hon. Member is talking about, for that private Member's Bill to be blocked to make a point about procedure, even if the substance of the Bill was sensible?

Mr. Redwood: There are so many ifs in that question that I fear I cannot be tempted into giving either the friendly answer that the hon. Gentleman would obviously like or an unfriendly one, which would be unfair, given the number of hypotheticals that he has advanced. I believe that he should mainly address his remarks to Ministers. The reason that he is very unlikely to get his

Bill passed is that Ministers are not making enough days available. The reason that he is very unlikely to get full co-operation from all of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that the Opposition are exceedingly angry about the way in which business is being dragooned through the House.
I notice a pattern developing. When the Government began imposing guillotines on everything—obviously, wanting to limit the number of days for private Members' business is part of that—they were so arrogant that they would not tell the House anything about their thinking. Then they would just explain a little. Today we have had rather fuller explanation and a little bit of flexibility. That is welcome, but it is still nothing like the proper flexibility that a mature House of Commons has enjoyed in the past and expects from its ministerial team. Ministers should be prepared to engage in debate. They should not be shy of private Members' business having more days for debate, and they should not wish to carry on in this ridiculous fashion, believing that they can steamroller anything that they like through without proper discussion.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is normally a more reasonable and accommodating Minister than many of his more senior colleagues, will take this message away and think about it. There is a very strong feeling, which I suspect is shared on the Labour Back Benches, that Back-Bench private Members' business and Back-Bench private Members' views are not getting enough airtime, are not being taken seriously and are not being engaged in debate by the Government, and that the Government should mend their ways—otherwise, they might find that the feeling of hon. Members in this place that they are anti-democratic and authoritarian spreads into the country at a very sensitive time for them, when they are facing re-election.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) is not seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to participate in our debate, as he is the potential beneficiary of the ballot, which is the parliamentary equivalent of the national lottery. There is no constitutional reason for having a general election this Session: there are only political reasons for having one. The Government may well wish to cut and run before people catch up with all their misdeeds, including those of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, about which, I understand, we shall read more in tomorrow's newspapers.
The Government may well cut and run, but it seemed from the intervention of the hon. Member for Northfield that he is already looking for scapegoats. He is going to try to find a scapegoat for the eventual failure of his Bill in the interventions of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, if his Bill fails, the Government should be the scapegoat, as they will have failed to provide sufficient time for it in this Session before running for cover in a general election.

Mr. Burden: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) did not answer my question, so I shall put the same question to the hon. Gentleman. My point is very


simple: if the hon. Gentleman felt that a piece of legislation was sensible, would he join in blocking that legislation purely to make a procedural point?

Mr. Chope: I would always vote, as far as I could, on the merits of the legislation. Having considered, albeit briefly, the alleged merits of the hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill, I am not sure that I am convinced of them. Obviously, if we had the chance of a full debate, we would be able to explore that more fully.

Mr. Forth: As we are talking about making law, I hope that my hon. Friend would always insist that every Bill was properly debated on Second Reading, received proper consideration in Committee, on Report and Third Reading, and was considered properly in another place. I hope that, along with me, my hon. Friend would insist that anything destined to reach the statute book went through all of those stages in detail.

Mr. Chope: I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend, as there are too many examples of legislation that has been cobbled together by the Government and supported by the Opposition—whoever they were at the time—only for us to find out that it is probably the worst legislation ever passed by the House. It is essential that legislation is subject to proper scrutiny.
I am concerned on behalf of all those who have been successful in the ballot. I do not know whether the Minister has the required authority, but the Prime Minister could certainly come to the House tomorrow and say that there has been a lot of speculation about a general election in this Session. He could say that, as the Government have the largest majority that a party in government has had in a generation, there is no need to go to the country on constitutional grounds this Session. He could therefore announce that there would not be a general election until October at the earliest.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could also have said that they would bring the process forward? We have already had non-sitting Fridays this month since we came back from the Christmas recess. Fridays have already been frittered away by the Government, yet the Government are delaying the consideration of private Members' Bills. Does my hon. Friend not see irony in that?

Mr. Chope: I am not sure that my right hon. Friend is right. Because we had a late Queen's Speech, strict timetables are laid down in the rules of the House on the presentation of Bills. I do not think that Bills could have received a Second Reading until they had been presented and printed.

Mr. Hogg: There is another way forward. My hon. Friend will know that members of the Government are always boasting that they will win the next general election. Well, we shall see about that. However, for the purposes of argument, let us assume that they will. It would be perfectly possible for them to promise the House that, in the event—however unlikely—of their winning the election, they would provide additional dates to consider private Members' Bills to compensate Members promoting such Bills for the dates in this Session that have been stolen from them.

Mr. Chope: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point which, I hope, will be taken up and become

part of the Conservative manifesto. I am sure that that would be very popular. If there is a general election in spring, and a Conservative Government returned victorious, with a Queen's Speech in, say, May or June, we would be in for a long first Session. During that Session, there should be scope to give substantially more time to consideration of private Members' Bills than they normally receive.

Mrs. Angela Browning: rose—

Mr. Chope: I see that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench wishes to intervene. I hope that she will say that that is going to happen.

Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extremely sensible suggestion which, I assure him, will be discussed at the highest levels.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. All that I need now is for the Minister similarly to say that my proposal will be discussed at the very highest levels. I hope that he will be able to give me that assurance when he winds up our debate. However, I thank him for his courtesy, as he did not open our debate peremptorily by saying: "This is the motion—take it or leave it." He spoke for five or six minutes and explained a bit about the background, history and importance of the issue. The Minister understands the importance of Parliament and the House in debating these issues. It is a pity that some of his friends in Government do not seem to have the same respect for the importance of discussions in the House.
The motion was tabled and consistently blocked: sometimes my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was involved in that and had to be in the House for longer hours than perhaps even the Minister. My right hon. Friend had to go to all that effort to enable us to have this debate today. Other hon. Members also participated in that procedure.
This is an important debate in what is, more or less, prime time. I hope that it will provide the Government with an opportunity to say that there will not be an election until October so that all of the Back Benchers who have been lucky in the ballot can exercise their lottery right to have their day out. Our debate also gives the Minister an opportunity to discuss extra opportunities for Labour Back Benchers in the next Parliament.

Mr. John Bercow: Naturally, all Conservative Members await the onset of the general election campaign with relish and nothing else. However, will my hon. Friend confirm that his enthusiasm for maximum time to debate private Members' Bills is not unqualified or unconditional? When he sees some of the nanny-state, interfering, regulating, tinkering, mollycoddling contents of some of those Bills, his enthusiasm may abate.

Mr. Chope: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I would defend to the death the right of Members, however misguided, to put their proposition to the House and have it debated. I am not saying that I will agree with all those nanny-state propositions: far from it. However, it is right that people should have a chance to advance them. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) thinks that it is important to legislate on the


issue of high hedges. I am not sure how that will be achieved successfully, but I hope that we will be able to have a full debate on the matter.
The Government have already promised to legislate on high hedges—or, rather, they have given the impression that they will legislate on them. However, in practice, they are not introducing a Bill on high hedges because they obviously realise that it is extremely difficult to get even a proper definition of a hedge that will satisfy people at large. I certainly receive more letters about high hedges than about hunting.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to wander a little bit from the motion, but now I really must bring him back to the main motion.

Mr. Chope: High hedges are the subject of the third private Member's Bill to be presented, which, I understand, will be debated on the third Friday: that specific date is on the Order Paper. I hope that my remarks about legislation on high hedges are in order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall not say much more about those hedges now, although I hope that when the Minister responds, he will explain why the Government, having promised to legislate, have not introduced legislation on them. That would allow us to see the colour of such legislation and whether it would meet the needs of our constituents.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I, too, have a vested interest in the debate, as I was sixth in the lottery for private Members' Bills. I am in an interesting position because—although there is nothing official, in writing, to guide the public—the received wisdom is that there will be a 3 May general election, so that my Adoption Bill would be considered on the last Friday before Dissolution. The restriction on the number of available Fridays is therefore very pertinent to my position.
In my short time in the House, I have learned to keep within the spirit of private Members' Bills by choosing an issue on which there is very broad agreement. I therefore chose as the subject of my Bill the reform of adoption law. It is rather fortuitous that the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who is responsible for the issue, is in the Chamber. He will be very familiar with the correspondence that we have exchanged on the subject.
I should like to pick up on various issues raised in the debate by Opposition Members, not the least of which is the late starting date of this Session, as that seems to be the key reason why we may be up against the problem of an impossible timetable for considering a private Member's Bill that enjoys very broad support. Indeed, the reason why consideration of almost all private Members' Bills in this Session is an academic matter is that the previous Session ran so late into last calendar year. The public will find that very difficult to understand.
There has been great support for the subject of my Bill—the reform of adoption law—and the public will be incredulous that the Government seem to regard foxhunting as a more important legislative priority than

children in need of adoption. The Government's priorities have left some of my constituents and British adoption agencies bemused, to say the least.
I very deliberately chose adoption as the subject of my Bill to try to add a bit of pressure on the Government to introduce the reforms that, in July 2000, in debates on the Care Standards Act 2000, they undertook to make. Back in July, we were given assurances that legislation would be forthcoming, and the Prime Minister had just conducted a review of adoption. Indeed, the Opposition gave Ministers the opportunity to add new provisions to the 2000 Act to introduce the reforms that the Prime Minister said he wanted. That offer was refused, and we were told to wait for later Government legislation.
We waited for the Queen's Speech, but there was nothing in it about adoption reform. Consequently, I have taken the opportunity to address the issue in my Bill. Moreover, I generously offered in writing to allow Ministers to use that opportunity to introduce their own draft Bill to reform adoption law. However, my offer was churlishly rejected on the grounds that a private Member's Bill would be piecemeal and could not possibly introduce such legislation. Well, Ministers were already making a mighty assumption about what my Bill should contain. As the Minister of State knows, I have told him that my Bill should contain the White Paper proposals which have received consensual support and require primary legislation. That offer was generously made.
Last week, at Prime Minister's questions, the plot seemed to thicken. In answer to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said that the Government would introduce legislation in this Session to reform adoption. That was very interesting. We have probed the Government on the matter of "this Session" because, as we are all aware, it seems that there is not a great deal left of this Session.

Mr. Bercow: Given that, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the Government's legislative priorities are perverse and are likely to be regarded with rank disdain by millions of people who believe that the adoption issue should be properly addressed long before and instead of that of hunting, does she agree that the great danger is that the Government will not want to reach that sixth Friday, for they will not want to suffer the public opprobrium to which they would be subject if her patient and articulate advocacy of her measure were effectively to show up the Government's failing in that regard?

Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that he is thinking precisely as I am—that the subject of my private Member's Bill, in the context of the concertinaed time scale afforded us, is a source of very real embarrassment to the Government; and so it should be. Undoubtedly when history looks back at the Government's choice of legislation which they could have passed in this Parliament with their very large majority, their failure to introduce legislation reforming adoption will be particularly regretted.
I hope that I have the opportunity of a Second Reading for my Bill, as I shall use it to underline the point that the Government undertook to introduce such reform. Indeed, at last week's Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister promised to introduce such reform. It will be very interesting to see what happens. I should add that the


Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, to which the Government have referred, has already been enacted. It would not, therefore, serve to fulfil the Prime Minister's promise.
As a holder of one of the opportunities to promote private Member's legislation, I feel passionately about this debate. More time could have been allowed to consider private Members' Bills, and the Government could have chosen a better set of priorities. Those two factors would have made a substantial difference to the way in which I view restrictions on Back Benchers' opportunities to deal with very important matters.

Mr. Redwood: Has my hon. Friend been approached by representatives of the Government to say that they find her initiative very helpful and that they would like her to help draft the Bill, as it might get the Prime Minister off the hook? Or has there been absolutely no dialogue at all, and does the Prime Minister seem not to wish to honour that particular pledge?

Mrs. Spelman: I am very sorry to tell my right hon. Friend that my overtures have been rebuffed. Perhaps we should not be entirely surprised about that. I have certainly written twice to the Minister, reiterating our offer and making it clear that my opportunity to promote a private Member's Bill could be a vehicle for the Government's own draft Bill. We know that a draft Bill already exists. I have asked for a copy of it, but I have not been afforded one. After the Prime Minister's response at Prime Minister's questions last week, we probed the Government on the issue, but there has been no clarification of what legislation he plans to introduce in this Session, as he has promised to do.

Mr. Hogg: Is my hon. Friend saying that she has given the Government the opportunity to use her Bill to implement their own stated commitments? If that is so, can she explain why they have not taken advantage of the offer?

Mrs. Spelman: I note the tone of incredulity in my right hon. and learned Friend's voice. However, incredulous though he may be, the situation that I have described is absolutely true. My only conclusion on why the Government have so churlishly rejected my offer is that they are too proud to accept it.

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend will know that, last Thursday, when I raised with the Leader of the House the issue of the Prime Minster's pledge on adoption legislation in this Session, she indicated that, in relation to adoption, private Member's Bills and the time available to consider them were very important. However, after hearing my hon. Friend's comments, I am totally confused about the matter. At last Thursday's business questions, my very clear understanding was that the Prime Minister's pledge would be honoured using private Members' Bills.

Mrs. Spelman: I confess that I am similarly confused, for there has been no clarification the matter. Are we to take the Prime Minister at his word? So far it has not been retracted—unless such an occasion arises tomorrow, when I shall seek to catch the Speaker's eye so that I can probe the Prime Minister on the offer that he made last week. Perhaps we shall all be much clearer after Prime Minister's questions tomorrow.
Given his pledge last week, it seems perfectly legitimate to ask the Prime Minister to introduce legislation this Session to reform adoption law, and to ask him for which reforms he plans to use primary legislation. It seems legitimate also to ask him to clarify for the public that the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 is done and dusted. Interestingly enough, that legislation started as a private Member's Bill. It has been enacted and now requires only to be implemented. That is all that delays the introduction of those provisions.
In reply to the perfectly valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I can only say that the whole House is confused on the issue. My Bill is sponsored by members of the all-party parliamentary group on adoption, which is an entirely cross-party group of hon. Members. They support the initiative to try to enable the Government to introduce reform of adoption law because reform is so obviously needed, as has been highlighted by the recent cases of the internet adoption babies. However, the all-party group is similarly confused by the current situation.

Mr. Bercow: I do not wish to embarrass my hon. Friend, but I should like to pay her a compliment. She has just vouchsafed to the House an assurance regarding her willingness to sacrifice her Bill to the Government because she is concerned about the issue at stake and about achieving urgent progress on it. That is an example of heroism, selflessness and statesmanship of which I have known no equal from any hon. Member during the past four years. Does not it demonstrate the Government's base ingratitude that they are not prepared to respond in a similar spirit?

Mrs. Spelman: I thank my hon. Friend for that compliment. I have learned to take all compliments made in the House with a pinch of salt, but he has a valid point. There is a distinct arrogance in a Government who assume comfortably that they will win the next election and that they can afford to wait for their victory before they introduce legislation. Indeed, they count on that victory just as one counts the eggs in a basket, and it is that arrogance that has caused their current embarrassment. Their sheer complacency allowed the issues involved in the internet adoption case, which caused all of us such disgust and horror, to arise. The case arose in the absence of reform and implementation of legislation that has already been agreed to—something that has shown the Government to be more than a little wanting.

Mr. Tipping: A number of hon. Members, many of them Opposition Members, made it clear that they wanted this debate. I agreed with them, and I believe that this has been an interesting and important discussion. It was perhaps short, but it has been taken in prime time, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) recognised.
The debate has reflected hon. Members' different views of private Members' Bills. We have heard of hon. Members—I shall not name them—who are alleged to be stranglers of such Bills. The right hon. Member for


Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made it clear that he has little regard for private Members' Bills, but the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and Hykeham—

Mr. Bercow: North Hykeham.

Mr. Tipping: I refer to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), whose constituency I hope to visit during the election campaign, whenever it comes. [Interruption.] Indeed, I have been in Lincolnshire today, but rather than being dragged kicking to the Chamber, I have rushed and sweated to get here for this important debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that private Members' legislation gave Back Benchers an opportunity to raise important issues. We saw an example of that tonight, when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) advocated his outworkers measure, which will help to deal with scams such as the receipt of money in advance for bogus schemes.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) spoke at length about the need for adoption legislation, on which I agree. That is why the Government produced the White Paper. That document and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say that adoption legislation will be introduced during the current year. As the hon. Lady pointed out, my right hon. Friend said last week that legislation would be introduced during this Session. I hope that we can work together on a consensual basis to make changes that are of paramount importance—a phrase that is used in the relevant law—for the children themselves. However, she also made one or two party political points. I chide her gently; the previous Conservative Government, whom she supported, also published a White Paper on adoption. After that, however, it took them three years to produce a Bill that was never enacted.
I offer the hand of partnership, as adoption is an extremely important issue. The hon. Lady has heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have said, and has seen the White Paper. We will introduce legislation.

Mr. Redwood: Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain how the Prime Minister's extraordinary promise will be fulfilled? Is he saying that the Government now regret spurning the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that her Bill might be used—of course, if they wanted to take that option, they would have to allow more time for private Members' debates such as this one—or that they will introduce a Bill about which we have not yet been advised? They would have to be very quick to introduce a Bill before the election, so how will they honour their promise? I do not believe that it will be honoured.

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman is keen to pursue the date of the general election. He has emerged from the darkness of the Back Benches and into the light, but I fear that the Opposition Members' desire to try to name the day reflects an anxiety to get out of the light and back into that darkness.
Let me stay in order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The sixth Friday is allocated to the hon. Member for Meriden. I envisage that any proposed adoption legislation will be

comprehensive. Traditionally, private Members' Bills have stuck to one or two subjects, but I have no doubt that the sort of issues that the hon. Lady wants to pursue will be dealt with in any Government Bill. I am at a disadvantage, as I have not yet had the opportunity to see her Bill; indeed, I understand that it has not yet been published.

Mrs. Spelman: On comprehensiveness, will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the Protection of Children Bill 1999 was a comprehensive, pertinent and important measure that was enacted through precisely the sort of vehicle with which I am trying to change the law?

Mr. Tipping: The advice from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton)—it is valuable to have the Minister of State with responsibility for these matters beside me—is that the Bill to which the hon. Lady referred had 20 clauses. We envisage that the Government Bill will have far more clauses and that it will be comprehensive. I am not saying that it is her driving motivation to seek to gain party political advantage of these issues, but it must be borne in mind that they are important and are paramount to children's interests. She has heard what the Government have said; we will introduce the legislation.

Mr. Hogg: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me for issuing a warning to him. I have now been in the House for 20 years, so I know that when we come to a general election, the Government of the day seek to pop through all their outstanding legislation in the hope that it will go through on the nod. I point out to him that a number of my hon. Friends and I do not intend to let that happen. We intend only those Bills that are right and with which we agree to be popped through.

Mr. Tipping: Well, I heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said and I am not surprised by his view. He and his Conservative colleagues resemble turkeys waiting for Christmas. I look forward to the general election, whenever it comes. When it arrives, we will have to have the discussions to which he refers. I am not sanguine about the idea that the Bill will be popped through, as he charmingly put it.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give way?

Mr. Tipping: I shall give way once more, after which I must make some progress.

Mr. Bercow: The Parliamentary Secretary's mellifluous tone is as apparent as ever. I am bound to say, however, that his stance is rather rum. He appears to disapprove of the measure proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), but how can he do so when, by his own admission, he has not yet seen it? Is not it a trifle cheeky of him to speak portentously about the comprehensive Bill that the Government intend to introduce on the matter, when he is as yet in no position to judge—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that hon. Members are getting into a great deal of detail on a particular Bill, rather than the motion under discussion.

Mr. Tipping: I shall keep within your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, and simply say that any adoption measure that is considered on the sixth Friday that is allocated in the motion will not be as comprehensive as the Bill that the Government will introduce. The advantage of being in government is that one has a hand in and sight of proposed legislation.

Mr. Hogg: It is in the Parliamentary Secretary's back pocket.

Mr. Tipping: I have no Bill in my back pocket, but the White Paper on adoption has been produced—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to make me say that an Adoption Bill is extant. We have published a White Paper and held a consultation. We are in the process of producing a Bill, which will be introduced in the current Session, as the Prime Minister said.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) sagely and rightly said that there was nothing unusual about 2 February because the timetable is determined by the Queen's Speech. Several hon. Members have argued that we should have brought forward the first date for considering private Members' Bills. That is not possible because of the rules of the House.

Mr. Bercow: Which rules?

Mr. Tipping: Standing Orders. Several hon. Members have said that we will not have enough time to discuss the private Members' Bills. They may know the date of the general election; they may be planning their campaign, but the Government have a good deal of business to tackle. We have set out our task, and we are determined to achieve more. A great deal has been achieved, but much more remains to be done. I look forward to doing that in the remainder of this Parliament and with a Labour Government in the next Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.

Orders of the Day — Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I beg to move,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, for inquiring into a matter of definite public importance, that is to say, the matters arising from the deaths of patients of Harold Shipman, with the following terms of reference—

(a) after receiving the existing evidence and hearing such further evidence as necessary, to consider the extent of Harold Shipman's unlawful activities;
(b) to enquire into the actions of the statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and responsible individuals concerned in the procedures and investigations which followed the deaths of those of Harold Shipman's patients who died in unlawful or suspicious circumstances;
(c) by reference to the case of Harold Shipman to enquire into the performance of the functions of those statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and individuals with responsibility for monitoring primary care provision and the use of controlled drugs; and
(d) following those enquiries, to recommend what steps, if any, should be taken to protect patients in the future, and to report its findings to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and to the Secretary of State for Health.


Harold Shipman, who practised as a GP in Hyde, Greater Manchester, was found guilty on 31 January last year at Preston Crown court of 15 charges of murder, and one of forging the will of one of his patients. The clinical audit of Shipman's practice, which was published on 5 January, has revealed that he may be responsible for many more deaths.
Shipman's victims placed their trust in him as their local GP. He abused his position of trust callously and determinedly. It is beyond belief that a doctor could act in that way. Shipman was a cold, calculated, evil killer. His crimes have shocked the country and caused enormous grief and suffering to hundreds of people. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of GPs in this country do a brilliant job for their patients. We must not allow Shipman's crimes to threaten the essential relationship between doctors and their patients.
From the outset, we wanted to make sure we learned the lessons of the case as quickly and effectively as possible so that we could take all the necessary measures to protect patients. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 1 February last year that an inquiry was to be set up under the National Health Service Act 1977. It was to have taken evidence in private, but would have published its conclusions and recommendations in full.
The decision to take evidence in private was, as the House knows, successfully challenged through a judicial review brought by families of the victims and by sections of the media. They wished the inquiry to be held in public. In upholding the request for a judicial review, the court asked my right hon. Friend to review his original decision. Consequently, we decided that the new inquiry should be held in public, and we consulted the families about the form it should take. The strong view of the victims' families was that the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 provided for the most suitable form of public inquiry.
On 21 September, my right hon. Friend announced that there would be a public inquiry under the 1921 Act into the issues surrounding the crimes committed by Harold Shipman. The tribunal will be wide ranging and cover different responsibilities, including those that fall outside the health service's remit. Tribunals under the 1921 Act generally hold all or most of their meetings in public and have all the powers of the High Court in respect of calling witnesses and the production of documents. They may take evidence on oath and they provide absolute privilege in respect of defamation.
The inquiry will be comprehensive and inclusive. It will enable the victims' relatives in particular to play their full part in the inquiry.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Minister referred to the victims' families, who are very important. Is it intended to grant the families the opportunity to be legally represented so that they can participate in the inquiry and ask questions through their counsel in the cross-examination of relevant witnesses?

Mr. Hutton: I understand that the chairman of the tribunal has ultimate responsibility for determining such matters. However, it is the usual practice in inquiries under the 1921 Act for witnesses to be legally represented. [Interruption.] I understand that the question arises in relation to people who wish to give evidence before the tribunal.

Mr. Hogg: Of course that is partly correct. However, will members of families who have a genuine interest in the outcome of the inquiry because their relatives may have been killed by Dr. Shipman, but who do not have evidence to give, have an opportunity to instruct counsel so they can ask relevant questions of witnesses?

Mr. Hutton: I cannot add much more to the answer that I attempted to give to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister write to me?

Mr. Hutton: I am happy to write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with more details if he would find that helpful. However, the question is whether those people wish to give evidence before the tribunal. If so, their entitlement to legal representation is essentially a matter for the chairman of the tribunal. As I said earlier, it is the usual practice in such inquiries for such legal representation to be permitted.

Mr. David Winnick: I wonder whether my hon. Friend can assist me. I accept that it is not within his brief, but it has been reported in the press that Shipman was responsible for many other murders. That is being investigated. Would setting up the tribunal preclude charging Shipman with those murders? I appreciate that he has already received a life sentence. That is an important question, not least for the victims of that terrible man's crimes.

Mr. Hutton: No, setting up an inquiry will not preclude taking criminal action. Following the publication

of Professor Baker's review of the clinical audit of Dr. Shipman's practice, Greater Manchester police have established a new incident room at Ashton-under-Lyne police station. They are conducting further inquiries and examining the evidence that might support any further prosecutions. As my hon. Friend knows, any decision to bring such a prosecution is ultimately the responsibility of the appropriate prosecuting authority—in this case, the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Director of Public Prosecutions has already said that there will be no prosecution in respect of the second batch because of the question of getting a fair trial? It seems logical that the DPP will reach the same conclusion about the 64 cases that Manchester police are now investigating.

Mr. Hutton: Hon. Members will understand that I do not want to pre-empt such decisions. There are on-going inquiries, for which the police are responsible, into the suspicious deaths of some of Dr. Shipman's patients. It would not be sensible to try to second-guess the decisions of appropriate prosecuting authorities.

Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of information, will the Minister tell us how far back the audit of Dr. Shipman's records goes?

Mr. Hutton: I understand that Professor Baker's review considered all the evidence from Dr. Shipman's practice from the beginning of his time as a GP. I believe that the clinical audit covers 20 years.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the terms of reference and the chairman of the inquiry on 3 January. Subject to the House's agreement and that of another place, the terms of reference for the inquiry have been set out in the motion. First, after receiving the existing evidence and hearing such further evidence as necessary, the inquiry will consider the extent of Harold Shipman's unlawful activities.
Secondly, the inquiry will examine the actions of the statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and responsible individuals concerned in the procedures and investigations that followed the deaths of those of Harold Shipman's patients who died in unlawful or suspicious circumstances. Thirdly, by reference to the case of Harold Shipman, it will inquire into the performance of the functions of those statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and individuals with responsibility for monitoring primary care provision and the use of controlled drugs.
Finally, following those investigations, the inquiry will recommend what, if any, steps should be taken to protect patients in future, and report to the Home Secretary and to the Secretary of State for Health.
The inquiry will be chaired by Dame Janet Smith, who has been a High Court judge since 1992. She was presiding judge of the north-eastern circuit between 1995 and 1998, and a judge of the employment appeals tribunal since 1994. She is extremely well qualified for the job.
I would like to acknowledge the strong contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) in getting an inquiry set up into these terrible crimes. He has been in regular contact with


my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health about the case and has, in particular, been tireless in his support for the relatives of the many victims of Harold Shipman. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend cannot be here tonight as he is recovering from an illness that he developed at Christmas.
The House will know that the Government and the medical profession are already taking action to modernise regulatory structures and to deal with poor performance wherever it occurs. During the summer, we consulted fully on proposals that included regulating deputy and assistant doctors through health authority supplementary lists and regulating doctors within personal medical services by means of a separate list system. Those proposals also included requiring all doctors in general practice to declare any criminal convictions and any adverse General Medical Council findings. That work forms the basis of the proposals in the Health and Social Care Bill now before Parliament.
By setting up primary care groups and primary care trusts, which provide more locally focused management structures for general practice, we have restricted the opportunities for doctors to act inappropriately. In addition, the Health and Social Care Bill will introduce important new powers to strengthen the links between GPs, health authorities and primary care trusts. Underpinning those provisions will be greater information sharing, to support appraisal and mandatory clinical audit.
Personal medical services contracts agreed for the third-wave pilots from April 2001 will require doctors to participate in at least three clinical audit programmes each year, and to allow 30 hours for continued professional development per year per doctor. My officials in the Department of Health are in discussion with the British Medical Association about how to apply the same standards to all general practitioners.
From April this year, all GPs will be required to participate in annual appraisal. The purpose of the appraisal will be developmental, but it will also identify poor performance wherever it exists. That is important in order to protect patients. In August last year, we took powers to allow the GMC to impose interim suspensions on doctors when necessary, including in conduct, health and performance cases. Additionally, the minimum period of erasure from the medical register is now five years, ensuring that when a doctor is struck off, he should not expect to return except in the most exceptional circumstances. The GMC must also notify a doctor's employer if it is considering his fitness to practise.
In November, we took the necessary legal powers to set up the National Clinical Assessment Authority. The authority will become operational in the first half of this year and is at the centre of the Government's co-ordinated approach to better protection for patients and better support for doctors. It will provide a central point of contact for the NHS when concerns arise about a doctor's performance.
NHS employers and health authorities will be able to refer a doctor to the NCAA if concerns about his or her performance cannot be resolved locally. The authority will carry out rapid objective assessments and make recommendations to NHS hospitals and health authorities so that they can take appropriate action. That could involve further training, support, or, if problems were intractable, dismissal or referral to the GMC.
The Home Secretary is overseeing a review of the procedures involved in the certification of deaths and the authorisation of burials and cremation. The Office for National Statistics, the Department of Health and the Welsh Assembly are all involved in this work. The results of the review will be fed into the inquiry.
Right hon. and hon. Members may be interested to know that the location of the inquiry will be in central Manchester. We have secured newly refurbished offices next to Piccadilly railway station for the use of the chair and secretariat, and Manchester town hall will be used for the witness hearings. The inquiry will also set up a closed circuit television link to Hyde town hall, so that the witness hearings can be televised there on large TV monitors. That should enable the people of Hyde to keep in touch with the proceedings, should they wish to do so, without having to travel into central Manchester.
We owe it to the families and friends of those murdered by Harold Shipman to implement whatever steps are necessary to prevent a repetition of such terrible crimes. Shipman broke the trust of his patients in the most appalling way. However, he should not be allowed to break the trust that exists between family doctors and their patients. The measures that I have described today are intended to strengthen that bond of trust. They express the Government's determination to apply the lessons of the Shipman case to ensure that patients in future have the full and proper protection that they deserve.

Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the House and for giving his comments. However, as the Secretary of State gave the original statement to the House, and as it was his decision that resulted in the High Court review and the U-turn by the Government, it would have been only proper for him to come to the House himself to give the explanation of subsequent events. I say that with no disrespect to the Minister.
Even after a lapse of time, the immense wickedness of Harold Shipman is still hard to imagine. The tabloid terms that we have seen so often, such as "multiple killer" and "serial killer", still understate the full horror of what has happened. The way in which Harold Shipman abused his professional trust and the bond that he had with his patients is particularly vile and difficult to understand. That trust was given by patients who literally, and mistakenly, put their lives in his hands. The anguish of the relatives is difficult for any hon. Members to imagine. As a doctor, I cannot conceive of a bond built on trust being abused in such an unspeakable manner.
We must also remember, however, that it was Harold Shipman who was found guilty, and not the medical profession. I am grateful for the tone of the Minister's comments because, in cases of this kind, the specific is extrapolated to the general far too often. We must remember that the vast majority of our doctors are dedicated and hard-working, and we need to protect their reputation when considering any aspects of the case relating to Harold Shipman. All we ask is that all possible measures be put in place to prevent such a case from happening again.
The Minister detailed the terms of reference for the inquiry. The extent of the crimes is, as he said, still in doubt. It is unknown exactly how many victims of this


man there were, or over how long a period the crimes took place. I imagine that that will be extremely difficult to ascertain from the medical records, and that much work will need to be done. That process will be very time consuming, and any chance of a short inquiry will, therefore, be remote.
There will be much supposition and doubt about Harold Shipman's previous clinical practice, which is why there is a need for full disclosure in the case, not only to maintain public confidence but to give all due comfort to the relatives of his victims. Questions as to who might have known what was going on or who might have been able to stop the events early before more patients became victims will be crucial for the inquiry.
The inquiry must also examine the role that the statutory authorities should play, the role that they did play, and the role of any responsible individuals who should have known what to look for, or who may have seen but not wanted to know, the pattern that was emerging. We need to know what all this will mean for future practice. We need to know the implications of peer review and audit, not least in the case of single-handed practitioners. How will we ensure that those who practise on their own will be audited by their peers in a way that ensures that all the same safeguards are applied to them as are applied to those in group practices?
I am sure that all hon. Members would acknowledge the sterling work carried out by the many single-handed doctors in this country, and we do not seek to denigrate what they do. However, we must ensure that, although they work individually on a contractual basis, they do not work in isolation on a clinical basis. That is one of the most important questions for the inquiry to consider.

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to try to determine the extent of Dr. Shipman's crimes is to ascertain that from him? He has little reason not to make a full disclosure because he is not to be further prosecuted. Does my hon. Friend also agree that one way forward might be for the inquiry—and, indeed, the prosecution authorities—to give an undertaking that Shipman will not be further prosecuted and to try to get him, on the back of such an undertaking, to make full disclosure?

Dr. Fox: We have already had the assurance that there will be no further prosecution should further evidence be found. Although I should like to think that such co-operation would be valid in the investigation, I must say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I would not necessarily regard someone who has murdered many of his patients as being of suitable character to be a witness. I would not want to place too much reliance on such a person, which is why we must hold an external inquiry—a full audit of all Shipman's records. All possible means must be used to try to ascertain the truth. Talking to Harold Shipman may be a useful pointer, but I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees that we should in no way rely on that to get to the bottom of what may be an extraordinarily widespread and sordid series of events.
We need to know how revalidation and the Government's annual appraisal proposals—and, indeed, subsequent reform of the General Medical Council—

might affect these and subsequent cases. Such issues must be considered not individually, but as part of a whole. We must ensure that action is taken quickly and decisively at all levels in respect of early warning, early action and firm final action, not only to deal comprehensively with such cases but to ensure that those who are not guilty are cleared as quickly as possible and able to continue their careers.

Mr. Winnick: To return to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), if it emerged that Shipman was responsible for other deaths for which he had not been charged and convicted, how would those left behind feel? Shipman might have murdered their loved ones, but no action would be taken in court. Surely they would feel that the person in question had got away with such crimes. There is a point at issue here; perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address it.

Dr. Fox: I sympathise with that point, but it has already been made clear by the relevant authorities that there will be no further prosecutions. That is a matter not for the House but for the independent prosecuting authorities, although I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's reflection of how the relatives would feel.
We must work out how the Government's proposed National Clinical Assessment Authority would affect subsequent cases. Indeed, there has been confusion over statements from Downing street and the Department of Health as to whether the NCAA would guard against such cases. My view is that the Minister put the case rather better than No. 10 that such a measure would not have stopped a Harold Shipman-type case. It is being put in place to ensure that those who practise incompetently rather than criminally are discovered more quickly. The Opposition welcome supplementary lists, which are long overdue, as they will bring the regulation of part-timers and locums into line with that which full-time doctors must undergo.
As for the impact on primary care as set out in the terms of reference, there is an interesting point in respect of the disclosure of previous offences. Of course it must be right that people should have to disclose their disciplinary conduct record, but it must also be sensible to include a double lock under which an employing authority has a duty to check the disciplinary background of anyone it was to take into its employ to ensure that there was no blemish. Simply asking for self-disclosure from those with a disciplinary blemish on their record is not sufficient and the public will want a stronger mechanism. We must also ensure that should such a mechanism be put in place, we have sufficient law to police it as that would greatly underpin public confidence in such cases.
We must consider how controlled drugs are used and, in particular, what happens when patients die with controlled drugs in their homes. How should such drugs be disposed of and what are the rights and duties of doctors? All those points require clarification and I hope that the inquiry will consider them in detail. Many of us with experience of such matters well understand the problems that doctors face and the pressures on relatives in terms of removing medicines and clearing up a house. That can cause great distress, so the clearer the regulations, the better the situation is likely to be for all involved.
We look forward to the inquiry closely considering the coroners service. Many questions have been raised about its role in the Shipman case. Why was the pattern missed if it was so widespread and occurred over such a long period? What record-keeping mechanism would expose such a pattern? What review mechanisms were in place? What new review mechanisms are needed? Is the coroners service suitably regulated? If so, how is it to be policed? All those are important questions, but perhaps something even more important needs to be done.
A general practitioner who is not the doctor of the patient in question is called to sign part 2 of a cremation certificate for a colleague. The patient's own doctor cannot sign. I know from experience that certificates can often be signed in haste, perhaps to help relatives at a distressing time or to expedite funeral arrangements. The chances of missing a pattern increase when signing such certificates is spread among a number of doctors, so there must be a strong argument for a single person in a district to have the job of signing part 2.
If one person had the specific job, of checking medical records and signing part 2, it would become evident to that individual if a pattern was emerging among doctors in the area, and the pattern would be easier to detect. Whatever the results of the inquiry, I hope that the Government will consider such a legislative move, which represents a simple way of putting in place a safeguard that does not currently exist. Although it is all too easy for such patterns to be missed for many of the right reasons, they can also be missed for many of the wrong reasons.
We welcome a public inquiry. The scale of the crimes makes holding an inquiry in private unthinkable, and I know that that is the view of the relatives of the Shipman victims. The Secretary of State initially said:
The report of the inquiry will be made public.—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 908.]
That was clearly not enough. The families and relatives of the victims must be able to raise the issues that are important to them, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said in his interventions.
Setting up large television screens is a long way from the Government's original plans. The families of the Shipman victims, a substantial element of our national newspapers and the national media and I gave written evidence, forcing the Government into a U-turn. There will be a public inquiry, but that is not what the Government wanted. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, but, in all justice, the Secretary of State should have had the courage to come to the House to explain why he did not want a public inquiry and why the High Court forced him into this action. Through the House, he should give an explanation to the relatives of the victims of Harold Shipman.

Ms Chris McCafferty: At the risk of sounding patronising, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for having the wisdom and the stature to recognise that his original decision was not correct. As someone who has campaigned to ensure that Harold Shipman's time as a general practitioner in Todmorden in my constituency of Calder Valley is considered as part of any inquiry or investigation, I have always been open

about my view that the only way to establish the truth is to hold a full, open public inquiry considering all the aspects of the Shipman case. We owe it to the many unknown and suspected victims of Shipman, and their families, to do all we can to ensure that we uncover the truth about his activities, and to establish safeguards to ensure that such things never happen again.
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ensure that time scales and procedures governing submissions of evidence are widely publicised in Todmorden, where suspicious deaths are being investigated by West Yorkshire police? My constituents are very grateful to my right hon. Friend for ensuring that Todmorden was included in Professor Baker's clinical audit, for looking carefully at the professor's conclusions about Shipman's activities during his time as a GP in Todmorden, and for being mature enough to change his mind and propose a full and open public inquiry.
I welcome the motion, and hope that all Members will support it.

Dr. Peter Brand: Being a doctor can be an extremely lonely occupation at times. Medicine is not clear-cut; there are many grey areas. It is not surprising that some doctors, especially those in single-handed general practice—and, indeed, single-specialty hospital doctors—can find it extraordinarily difficult. It is well known that many doctors in such circumstances tend to move in two directions: they lose their confidence and take to alcohol or drugs; or they think they are infallible and start to behave strangely.
Shipman did not just behave strangely; he behaved wickedly, and quite exceptionally. I certainly hope that it is exceptional for someone to be as murderous as that. I also hope, however, that the inquiry will consider some of the wider issues that may cause people to behave as Shipman behaved, and to take account of some of the risks carried by all of us when we fail to support professionals whom we imbue with a great deal of responsibility.

Dr. Fox: Just so that the hon. Gentleman is not misinterpreted, let me say this. I hope he is not suggesting in any way that the pressures of any practice would cause people to murder their patients when he says that we must consider the causes. In my view, there are no "causes" when someone cold-bloodedly murders his own patients.

Dr. Brand: I am grateful for that intervention, because it allows me to clarify my view. As I have said earlier, Shipman dealt with his sense of infallibility—or, perhaps, insecurity; we do not know what motivated him—in a uniquely wicked, murderous way.
I hope that the inquiry will, in a sense, be in two parts: one part considering Shipman and how he managed to get away with his wicked and evil deeds; and the other considering the support and regulatory mechanisms that we need in order to assure the general public that the privileged relationship between doctor and patient is not abused, albeit in a lesser way, by other practitioners. Shipman is unique, but I do not believe that he is the only medical practitioner—or nurse, or indeed vicar—who, having found that he is professionally isolated, has started to behave oddly.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Notwithstanding his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), is not the hon. Gentleman just a little concerned that his remarks may be seen as making an excuse for what has occurred? Does he not fear that the families of the 300 people who have been murdered might misunderstand what the hon. Gentleman—who is a respected doctor—is telling the House?

Dr. Brand: The hon. Gentleman ascribes to me a motivation that does not relate to what I said. There is no excuse for a Shipman: that was unique wickedness, on an enormous scale. The point I am trying to make is that the circumstances in which Shipman practised allowed him to put himself in a position in which he could commit multiple despicable murders. I suspect that if Shipman had been a member of a support group involving other GPs—a Balint group, a royal college group or a BMA group—and had discussed his cases, it would have become clear at an early stage that he was a very odd man with very odd values. That is one of the ways in which professional peer review works.
I welcome the Government's move towards clinical governance and audit and examination of professional practice, but that in itself will not pick up uniquely murderous wicked people. This returns me to the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). It will pick up the incompetent—but if we encourage people working in isolation to be part of a structure in which they share experiences, it may well be possible for it to pick up totally aberrant behaviour.
I do not want to be mistaken for one who thinks that the country is full of doctors who behave in the same way as Shipman. I think, however, that we are short of mechanisms to audit, and also to protect the community at large. I feel that, notwithstanding some of the Government's welcome measures, we have a great deal further to go.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) mentioned the discredited "ash cash" arrangement, whereby, basically, a doctor countersigns the reputation of a colleague without actually doing much in the way of work. It happens day in, day out. The fact that the coroner does not necessarily liaise with the registrar for births, marriages and deaths is nonsensical. Most cremations go through the registrar, and the coroner deals only with what is abnormal, suspicious or uncertain. It would obviously make sense if a single organisation dealt with all deaths: that would enable suspicious or uncertain deaths to be fed through the system to establish whether patterns emerged.
We must view the matter not just within tight local-authority boundaries. After all, not just the constituents of the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) were affected; my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has constituents who have been bereaved through Shipman's wicked actions. The technology is, I believe, available to enable us to link information so that we see abhorrent patterns of behaviour.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman says that closer liaisons could take place at the end of life to check that the number of deaths were not caused by, for instance, murder. As a practising doctor, can he tell me why Dr. Shipman was able to obtain so many prescriptions for diamorphine? Why was that never

picked up throughout his practice, given the number of times we have been told that doctors must not over-prescribe, that their prescribing is checked, that there are limited lists, and so forth? In fact, there seemed to be no brake on the prescribing pattern of this particular GP.

Dr. Brand: I shall touch on that, but I wish to return to the point that I was making. Patterns of deaths are important, not only within general practice but within hospital practice. It is helpful for people who audit these issues to look at death patterns in long-stay wards or wards specialising in the care of elderly people to see whether a pattern emerges. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) about some of the practices involving long-stay beds or the way in which some older people are treated, or not treated, in hospital. We should see whether we can pick up and learn from the patterns.
Many issues were hinted at in the early reports into the Shipman affair. The issuing of prescriptions to Shipman for controlled drugs was quite astonishing. Industrial quantities of diamorphine were dispensed for no good clinical reason. I am not sure what the drugs inspectorate or the policeman who is supposed to be in charge of drug registers was doing; someone comes to see us every year—or every two, three or four years, depending on how busy they are—to see what we are doing with the drugs we buy. Likewise, pharmacies should be inspected to see what is happening with their dangerous drugs registers.
Clearly, this case should have been picked up. Shipman was stupid; we keep hearing what a clever man he was, but he got vast quantities of drugs from a small number of pharmacies. It is extraordinary that that was not picked up. It is extraordinary also that the clever pharmacist who tried to blow the whistle was not listened to by the coroner because the coroner did not feel that it was his responsibility.

Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem was not with the prescription, but with the hoarding of heroin from dead patients, and that the disposal of controlled drugs should be a central element of the inquiry?

Dr. Brand: There were two problems: first, inappropriate quantities were given to Dr. Shipman; and, secondly, he neither destroyed the drugs—the proper thing to do—nor entered them in his own drug register as having been received. It is essential that drugs are trackable between the manufacturer and the patient. In this case, the system clearly failed.
I am sure that many issues will come out in the inquiry, which will be handled sensitively. We owe that to the large number of patients and relatives who were affected. However, I hope that in the broad remit that has been given to the inquiry, time will be taken not only to look at how we avoid a Shipman, but at the wider issues. We should look at how the statutory authorities can work together to avoid similar, if not as disastrous, occurrences of repeated incompetence and inappropriate behaviour that may well be dangerous. These patterns can be picked up and I hope that the inquiry will involve a wide range of organisations.
It is not good enough to say that this is a matter for the GMC and the employing authority. It is a matter for the different nations of the United Kingdom and for the


international scene. There are lots of little strands floating around, following the reports on Neale, Leadbetter and other poor practitioners who got away with it for far too long. I hope that the inquiry will draw all of that together and that we will have an opportunity to discuss the recommendations in this House.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad that the Secretary of State has decided, on further reflection, to order a full public inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiries (Evidence) Act. I am sure that that is the right decision. I am sure also that there will be great confidence in Dame Janet Smith, the High Court judge chosen to conduct the inquiry. She is highly respected and has a great deal of relevant experience.
When the Secretary of State came to the House earlier about the Shipman case, I was worried that the General Medical Council seemed to be being made something of a whipping boy. Although the GMC is undergoing changes, I find it difficult to appreciate how it would necessarily have been expected to spot a Shipman. The behaviour of Harold Shipman was extraordinary and far outside what, happily, we have expected during our lives. It was so utterly inconsistent with what we rightly expect, and get, from GPs that the ordinary disciplinary controls of the GMC would not have been appropriate. That is one of the issues that Dame Janet will consider. I should be surprised if the GMC—under almost any structure—would necessarily have found and stopped Harold Shipman. I should be interested to see what opinion the judge comes to on that.
I endorse what the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) have said: Dr. Shipman was found guilty of these terrible multiple murders, not the medical profession. GPs generally provide an excellent service to the public and are having to do so under enormous pressure. I do not blame the present Government any more than previous Governments, but we know that greater numbers of hospital doctors and GPs are needed. We know that doctors work under great pressure and it is important that Governments of all Complexions give them proper support.
The Minister referred to the NCAA. Although appraisal and audit may have some relevance to identifying a future Shipman, I would not want it to be thought that that was the NCAA's primary purpose. It is important that, while we should monitor GPs more closely than we have in the past, the monitoring should not become excessively burdensome. It should be constructive and designed, like most professional programmes these days, to enhance standards, rather than be overt policing of the activities of those concerned. The monitoring certainly should pick up aberrant behaviour and the personal appraisals should provide opportunities to spot possible danger, but they should always be constructive.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend refer to what the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said about how Dr. Harold Shipman was able to obtain such large quantities of diamorphine and to retain in storage such large amounts of the drug? My right hon. and learned Friend said, rightly, that Dr. Harold Shipman, not the medical profession, is to

blame. However, the system is clearly to blame for allowing this man to store and use such huge quantities of that drug without question.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I was just coming to that portion of my short speech.

Dr. Fox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a mechanism such as the NCAA is likely to pick up poorly performing doctors or those whose skills need to be upgraded, but that someone who purposefully kills his patients and hides the evidence is hardly likely to be picked up by such an audit?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Yes, I agree entirely. I have not studied the Shipman case more than any other careful reader of the newspapers, but it comes through that Dr. Shipman presented himself to the world as a skilled and caring general practitioner, and I suspect that he might well have been able to bamboozle the NCAA, get quite a good chit—a high mark—as a GP, and keep his criminal misdeeds hidden.
The inquiry will want to question a range of authorities. The authorities responsible for the issuing, management and control of dangerous and lethal drugs such as diamorphine will be high on the list. The inquiry will examine the role of the employing authority in the case, and that of NHS management generally. It will consider the role of primary care groups under the new dispensations. It will certainly investigate the role of the coroner and the relevance of the register of deaths. It will look into the role of the police to some extent, although I am not suggesting that it would have been easy or even possible for the police to have discovered anything in advance.
Those authorities are all intended to work together, and we would hope that they could pick up such aberrant behaviour rather earlier. I do not know how long Dr. Shipman had been murdering people—nobody does—but it seems to have been many years. We need to end up with systems that, while not blocking the good work of medical practitioners, give a greater opportunity for the misuse of drugs, and for serial killing, to be brought to light comparatively early.
I am concerned about the length of inquiries. The Scott inquiry was deliberately not conducted under the 1921 Act, on the basis that that might cause it to become overlong. After it had lasted for three and a half years, people—perhaps including Lord Justice Scott—may have felt that that might not have been as much of a problem as had been feared.
We have recently had, or are having, three immensely long inquiries: the Scott inquiry; the very skilful BSE inquiry under Lord Phillips; and, currently, the careful and difficult, but none the less immensely long, Bloody Sunday inquiry. I very much hope that the Shipman inquiry chairman does not think—I am sure that she will not—that great length is a necessary feature of all public inquiries. Obviously, the inquiry must have a full opportunity to consider carefully what has gone on, but if public confidence in public inquiries is to be fully restored, it is to be hoped that it will be able to proceed at a reasonable pace, to report in a not overlengthy amount of time and, above all, to provide a report of reasonable length, so that ordinary members of the public and the press can read a decent summary.
I suggest that the report should not be over 150 pages long, with extra matter in appendices, so that the results do not moulder on shelves but are understood by the country at large and acted on by those who are responsible for trying to put things right.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), who made several points that I had intended to make.
I have some experience of these matters, in that I represented Grantham when Beverley Allitt was working at Grantham hospital and killed several young patients there. Understandably, that caused immense distress in Grantham and triggered the same kind of anxiety that we see in the Shipman case.
I welcome the Secretary of State's decision to hold a public inquiry. That was greatly desired by the families affected by the Beverley Allitt killings, and I regret that it did not take place, although I understood the reasons. In such grave cases, a public inquiry is absolutely essential. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State changed his original decision.
I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend's points about having a relatively brief inquiry. He and I were both involved in the Scott inquiry, and I was involved yet more in the BSE inquiry. Both those inquiries were immensely long. With all respect to those who presided over them, I do not think that the length of the inquiries, or indeed the reports, added greatly to our knowledge. We need a sharply focused inquiry that is as brief as we can make it.
My right hon. and learned Friend made an important point about the nature of the ultimate report. It must be readable by the ordinary citizen. I do not know Dame Janet Smith, but I know that she is held in high respect on the north-eastern circuit and elsewhere, and I am sure that she will bear these points in mind.

Dr. Fox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the efficiency and speed of the inquiry must be balanced against the wishes of the relatives, who must at all times be assured that all matters have been appropriately considered, given the scope of the crimes involved?

Mr. Hogg: Indeed. There will be families of victims, or of possible victims, who do not want to give evidence, because they have none in the technical sense to give, but who none the less may feel that their relatives were murdered. It is desirable for the families to be represented at the hearings, so that, through their representatives, they can ask questions of witnesses, allowing avenues of concern to the families to be explored, even if they do not immediately occur to counsel for other parties. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider making public funds available for that representation.
I strongly hope—I believe that this will happen—that those whose competence and performance are likely to be called into question will also be represented and have the opportunity to ask questions. Many people's professional

reputation will be on the line. The report may be highly critical of individuals, and it is proper for those individuals to have their interests properly safeguarded.
My right hon. and learned Friend spoke about the difficulties in spotting crimes of this kind. Such crimes are so exceptional that they do not immediately occur to anyone who is investigating deaths occurring either in GPs' surgeries or in hospitals. One of the problems with the Beverley Allitt case was that it did not occur to people early enough that a nurse could be doing such things. It is understandable that such a thought did not occur. Similarly, it would not occur to most ordinary people—including coroners—that a GP could be murdering his or her patients. Therefore, one should be slow to criticise those who did not early on in that series of events think of murder.
It is important that we try to establish systems that throw up abnormal patterns of conduct or of fatality, so that those who take an overarching view—whether the coroner or those who sign the part 2 certificates—can tell from data that have already been accumulated that something out of the ordinary is occurring. I hope that Dame Janet Smith will address that matter.
The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) is entirely right to say that Dr. Shipman will not be prosecuted for any other offences. There are at least two reasons for that: first, because it has already been said on behalf of the prosecuting authority that he will not be prosecuted further, therefore he cannot be prosecuted; and, secondly, because the degree of the publicity that has been given to the cases means he could not get "a fair trial". I would strongly urge the prosecuting authorities not to attempt a further prosecution, which could certainly not go forward.
However, there is a consequence that is worth considering. My considerable experience of criminals garnered from practising at the criminal Bar and defending many criminals suggests that, sometimes, there comes a time when they are willing to talk because they have nothing left to lose. It might be worth considering the possibility of intensively questioning Dr. Shipman again. He has nothing more to lose. He is one person who might be able to tell the relatives what happened, and one should not exclude the possibility that he might be willing to do so. He is a whole-life case—he will be in prison all his days; that is certain. Although he is clearly not a man on whose words one could place any weight, he might be able to illuminate some matters that are of interest and importance to the inquiry and the families.
I anticipate many claims arising from the murders being made to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Some of them may be fairly substantial, especially those involving the dependents of those who have been murdered, and some may be very large. I hope that officials at the Department of Health and the Home Office—I do not see a Home Office Minister present, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Health will draw my remarks to the attention of the Home Office—will consult the CICB on how best and most expeditiously to consider the claims that will emerge, which will be of considerable importance to individual dependents. I shall leave the Under-Secretary of State with that thought—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister of State"]. I apologise to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). I did not intend to slight him.
To sum up, it is important that there is to be a public inquiry. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has changed his mind in that respect.

Mr. Hutton: First, I should like to express my appreciation to all those who have spoken in this short debate for having lent their support to the motion. I am sure that everyone shares my sense that it is the strong will of the House that the inquiry be established and allowed to get on with its work as soon as possible. The House will know that that is conditional on the other place approving a similar motion, but I am sure that that will happen soon, enabling the inquiry to start. I shall respond briefly to one of two of the points made in the debate.
I shall certainly draw to the attention of the inquiry secretariat the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty), especially those relating to access to the tribunal. The hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and others have expressed their concern about the use of controlled drugs by Dr. Shipman. I am sure that they are aware that that matter is specifically included in the terms of reference for the inquiry that we are establishing today. We expect Dame Janet Smith to give careful consideration to that aspect of the case, which has given rise to the concern voiced in the House tonight and elsewhere.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) expressed concern about the work of the NCAA. I assure him that it will not work as a police force. However, as many right hon. and hon. Members will know from their constituency work, when concerns have arisen in the past about questionable or poor performance by GPs, there has been a lack of clarity about where to take those concerns and who is responsible for dealing with them. We think that the NCAA will provide a useful focal point for dealing quickly and effectively with such concerns, which does not happen at present.
On a point of information, concerns were expressed early on about the work of Dr. Shipman. One of the things we want the NCAA to do far more systematically than has been done in the past is put in place a proper set of procedures whereby such concerns can be addressed promptly and effectively and, if necessary, GPs can be provided with more effective support, which is an important part of the process. When serious concerns arise, we should act quickly and effectively, but that has not happened.

Dr. Fox: Does the Minister agree that, regardless of the measures adopted, the more exceptional the case—to use the word of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—the less likely it is to be picked up by any authority, especially if the case involves, not incompetence, but wilful harm to

patients? Should we not be careful to avoid raising expectations that we can prevent another very wicked man from committing similar murders?

Mr. Hutton: I agree in part. However, we think that the NCAA provides the best possible chance of our being able to intervene more effectively in such cases in future. That is what we want to achieve and we have been clear about setting out our objectives for the NCAA.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Would that authority, had it been established, have been able to respond to relatives who after reading newspaper reports suspected that something had gone wrong with the treatment of a family member and were concerned, but did not know where to turn and, because they had such great respect for doctors, were inclined to think that they were only imagining a problem? Does the Minister think that ordinary patients and their relatives will be able to approach the new authority if they suspect that the care that they or their relatives are receiving is not as they would want it to be?

Mr. Hutton: Yes, that is precisely what we think. We are also trying to establish other mechanisms to ensure that patients' voices are effectively heard at all levels of the national health service. That is what the independent statutory patients forums will allow us to achieve.
I tried to deal with the concern expressed in an intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about legal representation in the tribunal. However, I shall write to him about that matter and draw his remarks about criminal injuries compensation claims to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office.
We have had a short, but very useful debate. As I said, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. It is clear that the House strongly supports the motion and I am grateful for that support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, for inquiring into a matter of definite public importance, that is to say, the matters arising from the deaths of patients of Harold Shipman, with the following terms of reference—

(a) after receiving the existing evidence and hearing such further evidence as necessary, to consider the extent of Harold Shipman's unlawful activities;
(b) to enquire into the actions of the statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and responsible individuals concerned in the procedures and investigations which followed the deaths of those of Harold Shipman's patients who died in unlawful or suspicious circumstances;
(c) by reference to the case of Harold Shipman to enquire into the performance of the functions of those statutory bodies, authorities, other organisations and individuals with responsibility for monitoring primary care provision and the use of controlled drugs; and
(d) following those enquiries, to recommend what steps, if any, should be taken to protect patients in the future, and to report its findings to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and to the Secretary of State for Health.

Orders of the Day — Local Government

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 3272), dated 13th December 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be annulled.
The regulations are but the latest episode in a long and tortuous process that has far more to do with saving ministerial face than with any attempt to improve local governance in this country. They were issued just before Christmas—sneaked out without even a press release. It is also typical of the Government' s contempt not only for the House but for local government that, had the previous debate gone the distance, we would be debating this matter—if at all—very late tonight, possibly at 11 o'clock or 11.30. It is by good fortune rather than good management by the Government that we are having this debate now.
I made a prediction on 4 July last year, when we had a serious debate—on the Conservative Benches, in any event—on the sort of changes that the Government were trying to make in access to information in local government. The Government had brought out draft regulations and were sending them out for consultation. I said then that
eventually regulations will be produced. One wet afternoon, they will pass through some part of the House. By then, the spotlight will have turned on something else.
I cannot judge whether it is raining, but that afternoon—or evening—has arrived.
This is all part of the process that the Government call local government modernisation. However, too much of it amounts to being anti-democratic and anti-local government. Because the new structures of cabinets or executives will in effect give little or no choice to councils. I said on a previous occasion that the Minister was the Henry Ford of the local government world—we could have any colour we liked, as long as it was black. In this instance, we can have any type of structure we like as long as the Government wish to impose it. I appreciate the Minister of State's sensitivity on these matters, but if she interrupts her conversation with the Whip briefly to listen to some of the arguments, she might be in a position, just for once, to answer the points raised in the debate.
We are not the only ones, by any manner of means, who have expressed concerns about the overall effect of the changes on local government. They encourage the sort of one-party states that we see in some Labour-controlled councils, and encourage a culture of secrecy and exclusion. No wonder that Councillor Brendan Bird of Hammersmith and Fulham, a leading member of the Labour Campaign for Open Local Government, said of the Government's proposals:
If this is modern, why do all the good o1' boys love it so?—[Official Report, 4 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 261–2.]
The answer, then and now, is simple. The one-party states which had always sought to make decisions in small groups behind closed doors were allowed to do so in the full and certain knowledge that they were conducting their iness according to the Government's previous . The net result is that the Government are

cementing in the oligarrchies—the small groups running the councils—and telling them that they can carry on their business as they have always done, in small groups that are accountable to no one.
The Government's structures would have applied to every council in the country, save that it was conceivable that they would have been defeated in the House of Lords. It was only a last-minute deal between the Government and the Liberal Democrats that exempted some smaller shire districts from the regulations but imposed them across the great majority of local government in England and Wales.

Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at this relatively early stage in his remarks. He will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that under the proposed regime, only key decisions will have to be made in public. For my enlightenment and edification, can my hon. Friend offer any indication of what the definition of "key decision" is likely to be?

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend has characteristically cut to the heart of the regulations. If he will bear with me, I will deal with his point in detail in a moment.
As the Local Government Chronicle put it recently, the cabinet system is failing to impress, let alone the regulations about secrecy in local government cabinets. It said that a survey of councillors by Bristol city council found that many were unhappy about the replacement of the committee system with five scrutiny commissions. Some 86 per cent. of the 22 councillors who responded said that scrutiny was less effective. No one thought that it was more effective One councillor said:
Bring back the committee system. It worked and all members were involved in the decision-making process.
This is a two-stage problem. The Government are requiring the majority of councils to bring in an executive system which, in effect, banishes the majority of councillors from any direct input into decisions made by the councils. The Government's proposals to increase secrecy in local government then make that process even more of a problem. It is no wonder that many Labour councillors have expressed their concerns and opposition.
It is only because the Government were forced into a partial U-turn by the Opposition, the Lords and their own Back-Bench rebels that we have these new regulations and the concept of key decisions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has referred. Our position on key decisions has always been the same. How do we differentiate between a key decision and a non-key decision? Who is to choose what is a key decision? Even more importantly, why bother making that distinction? If matters are really important, they should be debated in the full glare of the public eye unless there is some circumstance of confidentiality, as is the situation now. If they are not that important, why should they be conducted in private?

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who takes the decision now as to which decisions are taken in public in committee, and which are not?

Mr. Waterson: As the right hon. Lady well knows, the majority of issues on a particular agenda are heard in


public. Usually, at the end of the meeting there are items that may be subject to confidentiality. [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady will have a chance to defend these bizarre and byzantine regulations in due course, if she can just contain herself. As she knows, most agendas have items at the end which are dealt with confidentially—and for all the usual reasons of confidentiality, quite properly.
The Government are in a real mess over secrecy in local government because they are not big enough to admit that they got it wrong and to return to the status quo. Let us remember what leading members of the Government have said in the past about secrecy and openness. The Prime Minister, no less, said:
We want to end the obsessive and unnecessary secrecy which surrounds government activity …
He also said:
The first right of a citizen in any mature democracy should be the right to information. It is time to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy which hang over far too much government activity …
I wonder whether he or, indeed, the Minister, remembers those remarks.
Here is another interesting quote from the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher):
Labour believes that democracy and openness should prevail, not patronage, sleaze or secrecy …
I checked the last edition of the Evening Standard when I was having a cup of tea, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman currently owns up to six homes, and who knows how many it will be by the end of the debate?
When all those worthy statements of intent actually hit reality, we found a different kettle of fish. Let us not forget the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes). In last December's Municipal Journal, the non. Lady stated:
Let's have no fantasies about this being an open regime … this does not mean that the executive must always meet in public. Councillors must be able to meet in private to discuss broad options, to have their political disagreements.
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Lady wants to correct me, she can do so in due course. She, too, has made some interesting comments on these matters—not least during the Standing Committee of the Local Government Act 2000. She said:
We are attempting to change the structure in order to secure levels of accountability hitherto unknown in local government.
We agree with that statement. The right hon. Lady certainly has been trying to achieve levels of accountability hitherto unknown in local government; the trouble is that they are lesser levels than pertained in the past. She also said that
I am not at all convinced that we shall secure openness by requiring that all meetings must be in public.
What has the Minister got against meetings held in public?
Last May, in an interview with the Local Government Chronicle, the Minister mused on the purpose of her proposed reforms. I cited the interview during the Standing Committee. The right hon. Lady said:
It is not feasible to have effective decision making when all of the thinking is done in the glare of publicity, because then people will not be thinking the unthinkable.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 May 2000; c. 267–75.]

There we have it. That seems to be the philosophy that has guided the right hon. Lady in producing the regulations and their recent predecessors.
In stark contrast, the official Opposition have a strong and consistent record on the promotion of open local government. In 1960, when Baroness Thatcher—as she then was not—was a new Back-Bench Member, she steered through a private Member's Bill that was enacted as the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960. For the first time, councils were forced to open up all meetings to the press and the public.
The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985—also passed by a Conservative Government—allowed the public access to key council papers three days before meetings. It is no wonder that Mr. Andrew Ecclestone of the Campaign for Freedom of Information remarked:
We are now finding a Labour government removing the rights Mrs Thatcher gave us.
Is not that incredible?
Even in the teeth of such criticism, the Minister carried on. We heard comments such as those made by Sir Jeremy Beecham of the Local Government Association who talked of witnessing the "strange death" of local democracy. The Society of Editors noted that, as a result of the reforms, there would be a reduction in the flow of information to the public and to the media.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: During the John Smith memorial lecture on 7 February 1996, was it not the height of hypocrisy for the Prime Minister to say:
The first right of a citizen in any mature democracy should be the right to information—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman might like to rephrase the remarks he used about the Prime Minister.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Was it not totally inconsistent and contrary to the high public standards that one would expect from the Minister who is first among equals in this country when the Prime Minister made the following comment? In 1996, he said:
The first right of a citizen in any mature democracy should be the right to information. It is time to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy which hang over far too much government activity.
Labour purport to be the Government of openness and freedom of information, but the Prime Minister is trying to cloak local government in secrecy through this statutory instrument.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. After four years, we are used to such hypocrisy from the Government.
Several independent organisations criticised the Government's proposals. The National Union of Journalists noted that cabinets or executives meeting behind the closed doors that are being imposed will deny basic access to local democracy. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives also criticised the proposals. The list goes on: the Local Government Information Unit, Charter 88 and the Campaign for Freedom of Information all criticised what the Minister was about.
There has not been much improvement. In the teeth of a Back-Bench rebellion—from the vast swathe of empty Benches behind the Minister, I assume that it has been seen off—the Government got themselves into a terrible mess; since then, they have been bashed from pillar to post trying to find a solution—to satisfy not the Opposition or local government, but the Labour rebels on the Back Benches and in local government. They rushed out draft regulations, relying on the bizarre distinction between key and non-key decisions.
Most of us will have received a briefing from the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which has a distinguished record on dealing with such issues over the past six to nine months while the legislation was going through the House. The CFI points out that
there remain serious concerns that the Regulations will increase secrecy in local government if adopted in their present form.
Because of the distinction between key and other decisions, the CFI is concerned that
There is no minimum standard of openness which would apply to all councils.
That is right. Such a provision is notably absent from the regulations.
The CFI also notes:
Where decisions are based on draft reports, no advance disclosure is required.
That provision seems to have crept in since our last debate on the proposals. The CFI states:
This is carte blanche to suppress embarrassing information.

Mr. Peter Luff: From my hon. Friend's visits to Worcestershire, he will be aware that there are deep reservations in the county about all the proposals. I am particularly alarmed about the impact of key decisions. An enormous electoral ward such as Bowbrook or Inkberrow, where huge decisions could be taken affecting communities, will not be subject to openness under the proposals. Why are huge electoral divisions excluded in that monstrous way?

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend has made an important point to which I shall return in a moment. The CFI is also most exercised on that matter.
A new ground for secrecy has crept into the latest version of the regulations—it certainly was not included in the draft regulations on which consultations were held last summer. The requirement to meet in public when discussing key decisions can be got around if the executive asserts that the main purpose of the meeting is to be briefed by officers. I can think of no Conservative-run council which would stoop to such a base subterfuge, but I can certainly think of a few Labour or Liberal Democrat councils where that might be an attractive option.
The CFI is absolutely right in its comments on the definition of a key decision. The definition is to be made by the people who take the decisions in a council. The CFI states:
We believe a substantial step backwards into secrecy will occur if the Government does not set national minimum standards of openness for local government.

Mr. Bercow: Surely the whole issue of key decisions regnant with uncertainty and arbitrariness. The matters

that are judged to be key decisions need not necessarily be of a party political character. Is my hon. Friend aware that I was a member of Lambeth borough council, as the councillor for the St. Leonard's ward from 1986 to 1990, and that there were members on both sides of the council who genuinely believed—I did not agree with them, but I respected their view—that the decision to allow a circus with performing animals to take place at a venue in the borough was the issue of the greatest moment that they had ever considered? Other members took a different view. Would we meet in public or in private? Would the decision he key or marginal—who knows? Will my hon. Friend advise me?

Mr. Waterson: I am aware of my hon. Friend's distinguished career it local government before he came to this House. He raises a good example of a key decision. I do not want to go into defining the fabled key decisions too much, as the Government have become so contorted in trying to do so that they are in danger of sucking some perfectly sensible people into the black hole that they have created.
The CFI has tried to fix a figure for the amount of money that would identify a key decision. It has suggested a national financial threshold, but we do not agree. That seems to us merely to pander to the absurdly complex and bureaucratic system that the Government have produced because they cannot bring themselves to say that they were wrong and that the previous system should be reintroduced.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is not the kernel of the regulations that efficient councils such as my own Cotswold district council would want, wherever possible, to hold meetings and debates in public? Only inefficient councils with something to hide will hide behind these regulations and try and hold meetings and take decisions in private.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is right, and has touched on the whole point of the debate. Regulations that are too complex will cause ill-intentioned people to find a way around them. The simple rules about openness and disclosure in local government that obtained under successive Conservative Governments meant that all meetings—in council and committee—and the relevant agendas and papers were open to the public, except where there were legitimate reasons for confidentiality. It is much more difficult to get around a simple rule such as that.
I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) about the key decision definition. The CFI stated:
The critical failing of the definition is that a decision which significantly affects people in one ward will not be a key decision.
How bizarre can one get? That must be wrong according to any view.

Mr. David Lidington: In a county council area, one electoral division might include several different village communities. Does not my hon. Friend agree that a council decision with a serious impact on more than one hamlet or village in a rural area would therefore not qualify as a key decision under regulation 8 of the draft regulations?

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is right. The provision is typical of the metropolitan liberal elite that drives


Government policy in this and so many other areas. The Government assume that all wards are inner-city wards, with people crammed into a relatively few streets. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, some wards cover several different communities, with different needs and aspirations.

Mr. Luff: In Worcestershire, a critical decision must be made about the location of an incinerator. It will be located in one electoral division of the county, not more than one. No decision is more sensitive or more key than that, but it will not constitute a key decision under the rules, and meetings about it will be held in private.

Ms Armstrong: Yes, it will be a key decision.

Mr. Luff: The Minister, from a sedentary position, shouts that it will be a key decision but she clearly does not know her own regulations.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend gives an extremely good example. Few decisions could be more acutely sensitive locally than the siting of an incinerator. Under the definition of key decisions, because the decision that my hon. Friend describes would affect only one ward, that decision would not have to be subject to the requirements of the regulations. That makes no sense at all.
The CFI went on to say:
At present, the initial opinion of the author of the report as to whether publication would disclose "confidential" or "exempt" material
within the terms of the Local Government Act 1972—
can he challenged by a councillor present it the committee meeting considering the item.
Those Conservative Members who have been in local government will remember that. If the meeting decides otherwise, councillors can consider so-called exempt material in public. Under the regulations, that would not be possible.
The Minister does not need to take my word about the nonsenses that the regulations create. Only the other day, in an article in the Local Government Chronicle, George Jones and John Stewart, two leading professors of local government, wrote:
The Local Government Act 2000 is a piece of bad legislation. It is a classic example of central prescription based on no real evidence.
They also mentioned secrecy and key decisions. Of the latter, they wrote:
This wheeze immediately raised the problem of what a key decision is; one person's minor decision is another's key decision.
I refer the House back to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. The authors of the article conclude:
Generally, the consequence could be to drive decision making away from the public arena of the cabinet to the privacy of the individual decision maker, sometimes after private discussions by the cabinet.
They end with a crushing indictment of the Minister when they state:
These changes show how little had been thought through initially, and reinforce the case against detailed central prescription. How much better it would have been for the government to have allowed innovation, and not assumed it knew what form the innovation should take.

It is typical of the Government that their original intention was to reduce accountability and encourage secrecy in local government, and to create a new culture of concealment. They have been pushed from pillar to post by the Opposition in this House, by the Lords and by some of their own Back Benchers. The regulations are all about saving the Minister's face.
Ministers should admit that they got it hopelessly wrong on cabinet secrecy and revert to the clear position that existed under the previous Conservative legislation. The press and public currently have a right to attend council meetings and committees and to see council papers three days in advance of those meetings. The next Conservative Government will reverse any changes that are passed and will require all cabinets to be open to press and public, as was previously the case. We will promote openness and accountability in local councils, even if the Government will not, and we will seek to reinvigorate local democracy. Conservatives are now the party of local government.

Mr. Don Foster: I was interested in an intervention made earlier by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in the speech by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), asking the latter to deal with the important question of key decisions. It took about eight minutes before the hon. Member for Eastbourne got around to addressing that issue. After some introductory remarks, I hope to get to it rather more quickly.
During the passage of the Local Government Bill, Liberal Democrats here and in another place made it clear that we were worried about early versions of the Bill in respect of freedom of information. The hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly pointed out that the Conservative Members worked hard to persuade the Government to change their mind on the issue, but Liberal Democrat Members did too. We were delighted therefore that the Government were prepared, over time, to make changes in that regard.

Mr. Bercow: I note the hon. Gentleman's point about the Liberal Democrats' determination to force a Government rethink but, in view of the fact that his party prides itself on its grounding in local government, why—and it is a simple point—is he not accompanied by a single colleague from his own party as he eloquently makes his points this evening?

Mr. Foster: I could do a statistical analysis of what percentage of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are present in the Chamber, but I shall not stoop to that.
I wish to discuss the key points of the debate. I said that I was delighted that the Government were prepared to move forward. Given the assurances that were given during the passage of the Local Government Act 2000, Liberal Democrats were prepared to support the Act at its final stage. Therefore, I want to put it firmly on the record that we will not support the Government's regulations this evening. The regulations are deficient in several respects and fall short of the assurances that were specifically given in debates on last year's Act. I shall come to those assurances later.
Unlike the hon. Member for Eastbourne, we do not advocate a return to the status quo. There can be no doubt whatever that, in certain respects, the Government's


proposals for freedom of information are a move forward that should be welcomed. It is acknowledged that the regulations require executives to meet in public when they discuss key discussions, and they relate not only to the decisions that are taken collectively, but to those that are taken by individuals. That is an important point. The regulations also require greater advanced availability of papers relating to important decisions than is required at present of certain categories of exempt information that is not disclosed. That is a helpful move forward.
However, we are genuinely concerned that the regulations could lead to the some local councils returning to the dark ages if they wish to do so. They could hold many more of their deliberations in secret.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne has dealt with the three key concerns. The first is the issue that was touched on by the hon. Member for Buckingham. What exactly is a key decision? The Government's proposals will, in effect, leave it to local authorities to decide what the definition should be. That could lead to authorities being secretive if they so wish.
We are also concerned about aspects of the regulations. The use of the get-out clause on draft papers could determine what types of information would be prevented from being made available. Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne, we are also concerned with the new provision that has suddenly and rather mysteriously appeared. It will allow executives to meet in public when discussing key issues, but will enable them not to do so if the executive itself asserts that the main purpose of the meeting is simply to be briefed by officers.
The definition of a key decision is pivotal and the regulations have two approaches to it. One definition is that a decision is likely to be a key decision if it involves significant expenditure or savings in relation to the council's budget for a service. The problem is that it is then left to the individual council to decide what constitutes a significant expenditure or a significant saving. Those authorities that wish to be secretive could set a high figure, but those that wish to be fairly open could set a low figure. That would lead to the problem that councils across the country could set very different standards. Surely freedom of information is a basic right to which all citizens are entitled regardless of where they live or by which council they are served.
The second part of the definition allows people to consider how many wards in a council area are likely to be affected. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) raised an interesting point when he said that an incinerator in his area would be sited in just one ward. That is an important decision but, under the regulations, a key decision must affect two or more wards. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to consider his example more closely, because the council's expenditure on the incinerator would be almost minimal. Therefore, the decision would come under neither of the two categories and the council would be entitled to determine that the matter was not a key decision, so it would be able to discuss it in private.

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is being disingenuous. A waste incinerator would affect the whole population in a council area and the expenditure on it

would affect the whole population. Even if the decision were taken at arm's length, a significant sum of money would be involved, so no one could pretend—here or anywhere else—that it would not be a significant decision. The matter would have been scrutinised long before the executive or mayor came to take such a decision. In those circumstances, to pretend that it would not be a key decision is an insult to the council and to local people.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for that strongly expressed response. She is helping us to begin to tease out, and has put on record, her understanding of what will happen if the regulations are accepted unamended.
I have another example from my constituency. The local council had to decide whether to close a small school for infants that serves the people in only one ward. According to the officers' report, only a small saving would be made, so they argued that the decision was being taken for purely educational reasons. Therefore, the decision affected only one ward and only a small sum of money was involved. That means that, under the regulations, the decision could have been taken in secret by the executive.

Ms Armstrong: indicated dissent.

Mr. Foster: The Minister shakes her head, but if her understanding of the meaning of small sums of money and one ward is different from mine, we obviously have a difficulty.

Mr. Bercow: I very much agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. In the type of case that he has described, surely the only circumstances in which a debate on the decision would automatically be held in public would be either if the school building—by extraordinary serendipity—happened to cross a ward boundary and/or if parents from more than one ward sent their children to that particularly small school. Neither of those circumstances can be assured.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right. One could start to develop all sorts of complex examples that involve bringing in pupils from other wards or show that a couple of bricks the outside the ward in question. However, the case that I have described is a good example of the problems that could occur if the council shows no good will and does not want to be open with the people that it seeks to serve. When the council clearly intends to discuss matters in secret, the regulations will make it perfectly possible for it to do so.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne also briefly touched on the issue of whethey it would be possible to avoid making information available to members of the public by keeping a report in draft form and by continuing to keep it in draft form up to the last minute. I raised this issue several times in the Committee considering the Local Government Act 2000. In response to one of my points, the Minister said:
The hon. Member for Bath expressed concern that people might keep things in draft until very late to avoid having to disclose information at an early stage. We need to look at this carefully to find out whether we should stipulate in regulations the papers relating to a decision be made available at least a certain number of


days before a final decision is taken in all but the most urgent cases … We will certainly consider whether we should make such provision through regulations.

Ms Armstrong: Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the regulations, because they fully cover his concerns and he should be reassured?

Mr. Foster: I have looked very carefully at the regulations, and I shall refer my remarks to regulation 9, the definition of report as it appears in regulation 2 and the guidance itself. However, I am totally unconvinced that the concern that I expressed has been covered. Indeed, the Minister wanted to take the matter further. She also said:
any paper that goes to an executive member in relation to taking a decision will be made public at the same time.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 May 2000; c. 272–302.]
At one point, the Minister was prepared to acknowledge that any paper that could be used in assisting an executive to come to a key decision would be made public.
The Campaign for Freedom of Information, which has also studied the regulations and the guidance in considerable detail, is not convinced on this matter. However, if the Minister is convinced that all is well, perhaps we could consider whether it is possible to abuse what she seeks to introduce.

Mr. Robert Key: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from regulation 8, can he tell me where the Secretary of State has published guidance on the meaning of the word "significant"? That is an absolutely crucial consideration. The regulations say that a council must have regard
to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State
when it determines what it thinks is significant. I have not seen that guidance. Has he?

Mr. Foster: To be fair to the Minister, she has produced guidance that refers to the Government's understanding of the word "significant". Once the hon. Gentleman reads it, he will not find it especially convincing, but, more importantly, he will find that an individual council will be able to make one decision while another council makes a totally different decision based on the guidance offered by the Minister.

Mr. Key: indicated assent.

Mr. Foster: That is my concern, and I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. [Interruption] The hon. Member for Buckingham asks about the issue of a key decision. That is also a significant issue, hence the two are intimately bound together.
I am interested in whether there are measures to prevent abuse. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), said on Report:
Having said that, there is provision against abuse—for example, the possibility of reports remaining in draft form until immediately before a meeting.—[Official Report, 4 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 265.]
I should be grateful if the Minister could draw my attention specifically to the provision against abuse. I and others have looked for it, but there is no evidence in the regulations of effective safeguards against what the

Minister describes. Indeed, the assurance that safeguards would be provided was given in another place by the noble Lord Whitty, who said:
we shall prevent by regulation any abuse covering the disclosure of draft reports.—[Official Report, House of Lords. 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 61.]
I look to the Minister to tell us where we can find those safeguards.
The new aspect of the regulations is that they will allow executives to meet in secret when they claim that the principal purpose of the meeting is for an office to brief a decision maker, or members of a decision-making body, on matters that are connected with the making of an executive decision. A number of bodies are concerned about that. The problem is that if a small but key decision on a significant issue is to be discussed at the same time as other matters, it is perfectly possible that, because it is only a small part of the business in hand, the executive will ensure that it is discussed and dealt with in secret session.
I do not accept that all was well in the past, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne suggested. Progress has been made. Nevertheless, in several key areas, the regulations are genuinely deficient. I very much hope that the Minister will be prepared to think again and to take some of our significant and key concerns back to the drawing board, so that we will have another opportunity to consider them when hon. Members on both sides of the House might be able to give their support.

Tony Wright: I have only three questions for my right hon. Friend. However, before I put those to her, I should explain that we are discussing the regulations because a particular model of local government is being developed. If we go back half a century, it is interesting to note that the great reformist idea was to try to model central Government on local government. A great man, called Jowett of Bradford—my right hon. Friend will know of him—tried to persuade everyone that if we could transfer the committee system of local government to central Government, we would improve the way in which the Government worked. That is a very interesting idea.
However, we are now moving in the opposite direction. We want local government to adopt the Cabinet system, and that has implications for local government. One of the implications is that the way in which the Cabinet system works, within an envelope of secrecy, must be transferred to local government.
Important issues are involved, although this is not the moment to debate them. Local government needs radical reform. It should offer a diversity of models—it should not be a monolith. I hope that the Government's reforms will work out well. In some respects, I am agnostic about them, but I hope that they will produce the advantages promised.
I agree with what has been said about the provisions, but I shall not repeat all the good points that have been made. In some respects, what we are offered represents a gain on the existing situation—for example, with regard to access to papers when key decisions are taken. I pay tribute to the Government for that and for having listened to all the representations that were made.
There was considerable disquiet about the suggestion that there had been a decline in openness as a consequence of the larger changes being made to local government. The Government made a genuine attempt to listen to those concerns and produced the "key decision" formulation in response.
I shall set out my questions, which I hope my right hon. Friend will answer when she responds to the debate. What is to prevent local authorities from taking a restrictive view of the regulations? With respect to key decisions, the budgetary provision or the significant effects provision, what is to prevent individual local authorities from taking a restrictive view of those matters? No figure is specified in the budgetary provision, so radically different views could be taken about what counts and what does not. With regard to significant effects, the guidance refers to the traditional practice of local authorities as to whether they delegate such matters to officers or committees for decisions.
It would be odd if an authority that had traditionally been restrictive in such matters were allowed to continue to be restrictive. The question what prevents the regulations and the associated guidance from being interpreted in a wholly restrictive way by a local authority is important, and the Minister should answer it.
The second question arises out of that. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why she felt that it was not possible or necessary to provide some kind of standard minimal guidance for authorities to follow? Despite celebrating the diversity of local government, as I have just done, there is an expectation that there will be a common minimal standard across the board.
We want the larger reforms to work and to carry people's confidence. If it came to be thought that the provisions were being used in a way that denied the access that the Government had intended, there would be an erosion and a corrosion of belief among the public in the Government's wider reforms. That would have extremely damaging consequences. Why do we not require some kind of minimal floor, so that everyone knows that there is to be a certain commonality of access across the country?
The third question follows from that. Can the Minister tell the House what can be done if restrictive behaviour occurs—if some councils abuse the provision to ensure sufficient access? What can people do? It has been suggested that they can kick up a fuss, but we know how effective that would be. There is talk of judicial review, but that is not an option in the vast majority of cases.
Will it be possible for people to complain to the local government ombudsman that their authority has interpreted the guidelines wrongly, or has given the guidelines a restrictive interpretation that was not intended when they were introduced? If my right hon. Friend could give an assurance on that point, along with the other two, that would help in considering the regulations.

Mr. Robert Key: Among Members of Parliament for my constituency, there has been a tradition of seeking openness in local government. My late predecessor, Michael Hamilton, in his early years representing Salisbury, introduced a private Member's Bill which allowed planning committees to sit in public for the first time. I feel strongly about the issue.
Members of the public do not realise the nature of the process that we are going through tonight. An official from a Government Department said to me this morning in a Committee that the regulations would be the subject of a statutory instrument and would therefore be approved by Parliament. I had to explain to the official that under the statutory instrument procedure, the question put by the Chairman of the Committee is not "Does the Committee approve?", but "Does the Committee agree that it has considered the proposition?" That is it. The Executive are simply informing the House what they intend to do. Then, through the usual channels, we have to fight like mad for such a prayer as this to be considered on the Floor of the House. Of course, the Government then use their majority to get their way. The negative procedure needs to be explained because it is widely misunderstood outside the House.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend is making a very good point. With such prayers, it is scarcely open to us to approve a measure, and if we find an error, we certainly cannot change it. That is one of the main shortcomings of parliamentary procedure today.

Mr. Key: My right hon. and learned Friend is, of course, wholly right. The fact that we cannot make any amendment is another of the objections to the statutory instrument procedure.
I was disturbed by the timing of the statutory instrument. It was cynically tabled within a day or two of the House rising for the Christmas recess and it cynically came into effect on 9 January—the day after the end of the Christmas recess. That is extraordinary, and it certainly does not show any noble intention on the part of the Government. Hon. Members may call me cynical if they like, but if I had tried that ruse when I was a local government Minister, I would not have got away with it.

Mr. Desmond Swnyne: Was there any press notice stating that the regulations were to come into force?

Mr. Key: Not that I saw, and I keep a pretty sharp eye on such things. My hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that we do not know what is happening. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions if she wants. No doubt she will return to the point later.
One of the most extraordinary things about these extraordinarily prescriptive regulations is that, only a decade ago, the then Government—of whom I was proud to be a member with responsibility for local government—was berated by the Labour party because we could not concede the principle of general powers for local government. Indeed, such arguments were frequently deployed by those then on the Opposition Front Bench, but we said that the tradition in this country was that local authorities operated under statutory obligations laid down by the House. However, as soon as the Labour party came to power, all the pious talk of general regulations went out the window, and we now find that we have to consider such incredibly prescriptive regulations.
The definition of the word "significant" matters very much indeed. I look forward to the Minister telling us where that word is defined. No doubt it has been defined


if she says so, but it is certainly not helpful that the House does not know what the Secretary of State may think significant.
I have only one other comment to make, and it is in relation to regulation 12, which deals with publicity in connection with key decisions. Councils—and Governments—often resort to a practice that I find increasingly surprising. In my constituency, under the Liberal Democrat council, in coalition with the Labour party—each party is a tiny minority, and by far the largest number of elected councillors belong to the Conservative and Independent group, but the Liberal Democrats and Labour have a pact, which gives them control—it is extraordinary how often, when a tricky issue must be explained to the public, or an unpopular issue has been raised in committee and a difficult decision taken, it is not the chairman of the local authority committee who goes on local radio or does the inter hew with the local newspaper but the officers of the authority who are put up to defend the local authority's actions. That practice is much to be deplored.
I wonder whether my hon. Friends have come across such behaviour; perhaps they will give examples. We also see it in Government. From the top down, there is a culture of behaving in that way. Civil servants—or, in the case of the Ministry of Defence, senior officers—are asked to write letters to newspapers, or to appear on television to explain something that the Government have done.
Local authority officers are too often put up to speak for the councillors. The names of the officers of the district council in my constituency who do the explaining to the public are far better known than those of the councillors who take the decisions. If I were to ask my constituents the name of the chairman of the planning committee or the area committee, they probably would not have a clue, but they would know who the chief executive or the relevant officials were, because they are always turned out to make excuses for the councillors.

Ms Armstrong: indicated assent.

Mr. Key: I am delighted that the right hon. Lady agrees with me, on that point at least.
I hope very much that that practice will not be used as often as it has been, so I am surprised that, given that the right hon. Lady agrees with me, there is nothing in the regulations before us, which stipulate in enormous detail what should happen, that defines the parameters within which elected district councillors or local authority councillors can choose whether to explain or to undertake the publicity in connection with key decisions, rather than the officers of the local authority. That is deplorable. It should be a matter of great honour to local authorities that the elected representatives of the people should explain their actions. That is what accountability is meant to be all about, but accountability is lacking in this instance, just as it appears to be lacking in the regulations that we are considering and in the Government's whole approach.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am genuinely confused about the Minister's position. I cannot fathom why there would be an attempt to reduce the standards of openness that we have seen across the

country, historically, since the days when Lady Thatcher opened up local government in many ways. I puzzle on that dilemma. I accept, as the Minister has said across the Floor of the House, that that is not the intent of the regulations, and yet the general conclusion of many hon. Members and the tentative questions of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) show that there is unease about the drafting of the regulations.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made a pretty good fist of outlining the anxieties of the Campaign for Freedom of Information about the measure, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) did likewise by highlighting the detail of some of those arguments. I do not intend to read the Campaign for Freedom of Information briefing into the record because I know that the Minister has a copy, and that those in her Box are fully apprised of the arguments. However, too many people are arguing that, following the introduction of the regulations, the standards of access and openness will be lower, under the new regime, than they were before.

Ms Armstrong: indicated dissent.

Mr. Shepherd: I see that the Minister disagrees, but because the argument about any of these things no longer lies in this Chamber but will be pursued in the other Chamber, I must tell her in truth that I support the arguments advanced in the Campaign for Freedom of Information brief. I believe that they are reasonable and must be addressed.
Consistency between local authorities is important. Why should one local authority have a lower standard than that of the local authority just across its boundary? In the concept of the financial quantum, what determines what is a "significant" amount? The regulations are detailed, so could they not try to identify that? The discussions must be open or public if they involve amounts above a certain figure. It is not a question of war or battle with the Minister; it is about trying to achieve an objective. I do not think that, as drafted, the regulations do that. There has not been an advance but a retreat.
I accept that that is a difference of judgment. However, in these matters, the devil is in the detail. Every Member represents local authorities to some extent, and Members on both sides of the House do not want access to local government information to be diminished. However, the regulations do that and should be withdrawn or redrafted and reissued.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who speaks with such authority on these matters. I have no such knowledge or authority; I am merely the layman fumbling through the devil of the detail in the regulations.
The Prime Minister told the Campaign for Freedom of Information in March 1996:
We want to end the obsessive and unnecessary secrecy which surrounds government activity.
It bears repetition that, on the basis of that principle, the residents of New Forest district should, as a matter of principle, be entitled to expect greater scrutiny of and access to information after the regulations are passed.


However, in my estimation, that is not the case. That is partly a consequence of the Local Government Act 2000 and the move from the committee system, and partly a conclusion that I reached having made my way through these rather detailed and confusing regulations.
Regulation 5 in part II states that documents will be made available only after a decision has been reached, and
as soon as is reasonably practicable.
My understanding is that, at the moment, my constituents can inspect such documents three days before the meeting of the council.

Ms Armstrong: I hate to tell the hon. Gentleman this, but councils still have to produce documents a minimum of three days before such meetings. They have to produce a list of key decisions several months before and then they have to report. The hon. Gentleman is talking about reporting arrangements on decisions that have been taken. I should hate him to continue to appear so confused before the House.

Mr. Swayne: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for straightening me out on that one. It is useful to hear her answer. Perhaps she can be as helpful about regulation 21(1)(c) in part V, which lays out the grounds on which the public can reasonably be excluded from a council meeting. It provides reasons and states:
in view of the nature of the item, that if members of the public were present during the transaction of that item, the advice of a political adviser or assistant would be disclosed to them.
There is a thing—the advice of a political adviser should be made known to the public. I should have thought that political matters were the one thing on which the public would demand scrutiny. Very often, that is what divides councillors, and it is only appropriate that the public should have access to that information. It strikes me as monstrous that they do not. However, time is short and I am keen to hear what the right hon. Lady has to say.

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I am pleased to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) who, I understand, has just been appointed to the Opposition Front Bench. In those circumstances, he will have to read his brief rather better than he did this evening. Indeed, he will have to understand the interaction between local government and the health service a little more effectively than he seemed to understand local government in his remarks.
Much of what we heard from the Opposition was a bit disappointing. I felt that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was simply playing politics rather than seriously trying to see how we can move forward on the issue.
I appreciated, however, the comments of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I am aware of his consistent interest in the issue, and I assure him that the overall regime that we are introducing will be far more demanding on councillors than any previous regime. I assure him also that some of today's malpractice will not be possible under the new regime. I shall deal with the latter point in more detail later.
I am happy to say that the regulations will have to be considered regularly. Ministers will have to examine both the regulations and the guidance to ensure that they are achieving our overall aim of introducing in local government a new culture of openness and public accessibility. We want the public to know that their council is acting for them and on their behalf, and to see that in the way in which the council works at every level. That objective underpins everything that we are seeking to do.
The issues dealt with in the regulations are important and difficult. However, throughout the process of working out the detail of out policy we have been consulting widely, including with the Campaign for Freedom of Information. I do not think that the hon. Member for Eastbourne properly reflected the campaign's views. However, such representations are a part of debate and I do not object to that.
We have discussed, both in the House and with all those involved, precisely what details should be included in our access to information regime. I know that there have been concerns, including among my hon. Friends, about access to information. Those concerns are quite understandable: the regime is central to the success of our policies to make council decision making more efficient, transparent and accountable. However, we have listened carefully to the concerns and we have acted on them. At the final stages of our debate on the Bill, which is now the Local Government Act 2000, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) explained in detail our proposed access to information regime. These regulations put that regime in place.
The regime applies to every council once it has adopted an executive constitution. It is a regime of greater openness. I happily accept that we have been helped in putting together the regime by the contributions of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I remind the House that he is on record, in the Local Government First magazine of 6 January, as saying:
the Tories should be open and honest about their own hypocrisy—at the time they attacked the Liberal Democrats for negotiating with the Government to achieve much more openness.
As the hon. Gentleman has recognised, we have delivered much more openness. Other Opposition Members, however, argue that the regulations will shut out the press and the public from the council chamber and say that that might create a breeding ground for corruption and inefficiency. They argue also that we somehow sneaked out the regulations, just before Christmas, when no one was looking. They have also talked great nonsense about key decisions. I shall deal in turn with each of those points.
As for the old regime, it is nonsense to say, as Conservative Members do, that the regulations will shut out the press and the public from the council chamber. I accept that, in the past year, regardless of political persuasion, some co moils have become far too secretive while purporting to be moving towards new constitutions. Such councils have not done a good job of making the case for local democracy. However, let there be no doubt that the Government deplore such behaviour regardless of which party is in control.
It is woolly thinking to relate that increase in secrecy to the regulations that we are now considering. All those councils are operating under the old regime which


Conservative Members have been extolling. It is under the so-called part VA provisions that councils have shown that they can become more secretive. Yet Opposition Members want to retain those provisions. That is an example of the Tory hypocrisy that the hon. Member for Bath outlined.
The world has moved on. If, as Conservative Members suggest, we overturned the regulations, we would be in an even worse predicament. Once a council adopted a new constitution, we would not return to the Opposition's beloved but flawed part VA. We would not revert to the status quo. If councils so chose, there would be total secrecy and the regime would lack even the flawed safeguards of part VA. No hon. Member supports that.
Our regulations provide greater openness, transparency and accountability. They will deliver a regime under which people know what the executive will be discussing, who its members are, and therefore whom they can hold accountable. People will know to whom they are talking, and they will see the papers that the executive is considering. They will also be able to see key decisions being debated and taken collectively. Under the new regime, no significant decision will come as a surprise to anyone. No one can say that with confidence about the current regime.
The new regime is the antithesis of the breeding ground for inefficiency and corruption that Conservative Members pretend the regulations will create. People will have far greater knowledge of, and access to, decision makers than they have ever had in the past. They will also be entitled to greater advance notice of decisions than under the old regime, and they will have access to papers that cover a much longer period.
I shall now deal with the view that we sneaked out the regulations. When we published the regulations, I wrote to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman)—perhaps he does not communicate with the hon. Member for Eastbourne—and to the hon. Member for Bath and told them that we were laying the regulations. My noble Friend Lord Whitty wrote to the Front-Bench Members in another place, and we announced the regulations in a parliamentary answer. That is usual practice, but we went way beyond it. We wrote to the Newspaper Society, the Society of Editors, the editors of all the leading regional papers, the Local Government Association and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. Of course, everybody who has a copy of our guidance pack was sent an automatic update including the regulations and revised guidance. No one can claim that that constitutes "sneaking out" the regulations.
Let me respond to some of the specific points that other hon. Members made. I accept that, under our regime, there are circumstances in which an executive can meet in private to think the unthinkable away from the public glare. I make no apologies for that—such meetings have always happened. Indeed, as long ago as 1986, shortly after the part VA provisions were enacted, the Widdecombe report to the then Secretary of State stated:
It is a simple reality, which no legislation can alter, that politicians will develop policy options in confidence before presenting their final choice for public decision. We do not think this unreasonable. If the law prevents them from conducting such discussions in private in formal committees, then they will conduct them less formally elsewhere.
We would not in any way wish to discourage individual local authorities from opening deliberative committees to the public and press if that is appropriate to their particular circumstances, but do not believe that they should be required by law to do so.

We therefore recommend that the legislation should be amended so that the rights of members of the public and press to attend meetings and inspect documents do not apply to meetings of committees and sub-committees which are purely deliberative with no powers to take decisions on behalf of the council.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House know from experience, the choice is either to bring such meetings within a formal framework and properly record them or, as under the current regime, which is so popular with the Conservative party, for them to be informal, unrecorded and unaccountable. As a woman, I might say that women are excluded from many such meetings, but I shall not stoop to that. We have chosen the former course. The Conservative party prefers the latter—informal, unrecorded and unaccountable meetings.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne referred to remarks made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston: "There are no fantasies. This is an open regime." Her remarks happen to have been misquoted by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he recognises that.
Thinking the unthinkable perhaps, the Conservative party asks why we cannot have a regime that requires that every decision-making meeting be open. The answer is simple. If two members of the executive got together and decided that they wanted to switch on a light or switch on the central heating, in law, that would be a decision. If a mayor and her or his deputy met to go to a function and decided to use the official car, that, too, would be a decision. No one would want such a situation to be dealt with in the way suggested by hon. Members—recording and publishing the fact that a decision is to be made, giving three days' notice. We must achieve sensible government while making the regime as open and accountable as possible.
Several hon. Members referred to key decisions. We consider them to be ones that would involve significant expenditure of taxpayers' money or otherwise have an impact on the local community. As our statutory guidance makes clear, they are the decisions that councils often took to a committee. Although I accept that some people are concerned that too many decisions were delegated, we want to achieve continuity. Under the old regime, councils were not obliged to take such decisions to a committee, but they must now make them in public, although they were not previously obliged to do so. Councils can and do delegate such decisions to officers. Where that is the case, no one knows when or how the decision was taken.
I agree that the precise definition of such decisions is difficult, but, for the first time, we have tackled that. I accept that we may not have got everything right, but we have produced a definition that nearly all the bodies involved—for example, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, which the hon. Member for Eastbourne prayed in aid—helped to us to construct. Under our regulations, for the first time, even when decisions are taken by officers or individual members, they will be open. People will, for the first time, have advance notice of those decisions.
The definition in the regulations is clear and practical, and I do not accept some of what Conservative Members said. I cannot believe that anyone would say that a decision to close a small school with three pupils was minor or did not involve major expenditure. In any case, such a decision would have to go to the Secretary of State.


We are being perverse. We must have a regime that makes it clear that the way in which councils operate has to be open, but we must also allow them to continue to govern. We must proceed by getting that balance right, and the regulations and the guidance seek to strike the right balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) asked what would prevent a local authority from taking a restrictive view of the regulations. The regulations will go a long way to preventing those who have been involved in malpractice or poor practice from continuing such practice. We now have definitions and, if the regulations are implemented alongside the guidance, I do not believe that their effect can be as perverse as the effect of some regulations under current legislation.
Why is it not possible to provide standard or minimum guidance for local authorities to follow? I think that that is what the guidance does: it sets out what we would expect the minimum to be, and what would happen in the event of restrictive behaviour. A citizen could go to the ombudsman, and, as my hon. Friend said, could take his case to judicial review; but we would expect value inspectorates looking at corporate governance to look at that as well. If we see it in context, it is clear that the regime will be far more rigorous and demanding, from the council's point of view, than it is now.
I have not been able to deal with all the matters that have been raised because, with the leave of the House, the hon. Member for Eastbourne wants to speak again. I hope, however, that I have assured Members on both sides of the House that the regime will be more open. We are having to introduce definitions that have never been introduced before, and councils are able to make decisions completely.
I could have given many examples of Tory authorities that have been involved in extremely bad practice, but that is not what the debate is about. It is about how we achieve the right balance to bring about the greatest possible openness. We want to do that without preventing councils from making everyday decisions—decisions that are not particularly significant, other than in that waiting to make them might prevent those councils from governing effectively.

Mr. Waterson: Let me make a few points in the time—barely two minutes—that the Minister has left me.
The Minister says that the world has moved on. Sadly, the Minister has not. She seems to be trapped in a parallel universe, in which she believes that government by assertion will somehow make all the problems go away. She goes on and on about the new culture and so forth, but we are not impressed, the Campaign for Freedom of Information is not impressed, and nor for that matter is the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), who asked three penetrating questions that went to the heart of what is wrong with the regulations.
The Minister made a doomed attempt to defend the concept of key decisions. I think the House is as puzzled and as much in the dark as it was at the beginning of the debate. The regulations are riddled with holes and inconsistencies. Despite all the tinkering and the fiddling

and the wriggling, they are still thoroughly unsatisfactory. They will bring less openness to local government, and the next Conservative Administration will abolish them.
Tonight's debate is not what the Government intended. They planned for no real debate, and for a decision—if any—to take place late at night, possibly involving no vote at all or a deferred Division. That is the Government's attitude to openness—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 17(2).

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 266.

Division No. 77
[9.18 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Gray, James


Amess, David
Green, Damian


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Grieve, Dominic


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Ballard, Jackie
Hammond, Philip


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hayes, John


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Heald, Oliver


Bercow, John
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Horam, John


Boswell, Tim
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Keetch, Paul


Brazier, Julian
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Breed, Colin



Browning, Mrs Angela
Key, Robert


Burnett, John
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Burns, Simon
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Burstow, Paul
Lansley, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Leigh, Edward


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cash, William
Lidington, David


Chidgey, David
Livsey, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clappison, James
Loughton, Tim


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McCrea, Dr William


Collins, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cotter, Brian
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cran, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Madel, Sir David


Day, Stephen
Major, Rt Hon John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Malin, Humfrey


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maples, John


Evans, Nigel
May, Mrs Theresa


Fabricant, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Fallon, Michael
Moore, Michael


Feam, Ronnie
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Foster, Don (Bath)
Norman, Archie


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Oaten, Mark


Fox, Dr Liam
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fraser, Christopher
Öpik, Lembit


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Paice, James


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Randall, John


Gibb, Nick
Rendel, David


Gidley, Sandra
Robathan, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ruffley, David






Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tredinnick, David


St Aubyn, Nick
Trend, Michael


Sanders, Adrian
Tyler, Paul


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tyrie, Andrew


Shepherd, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wells, Bowen


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Whitney Sir Raymond


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Willis, Phil


Stunell, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Swayne, Desmond
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Syms, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Mr. David Atkinson.


NOES



Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainger, Nick
Corston, Jean


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Cranston, Ross



Crausby, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Ashton, Joe



Atherton, Ms Candy
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Dalyell, Tam


Bailey, Adrian
Darvill, Keith


Banks, Tony
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beard, Nigel
Dawson, Hilton


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Denham John


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dismore, Andrew


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dobbin, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Benton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H


Bermingham, Gerald
Doran, Frank


Berry, Roger
Dowd, Jim


Betts, Clive
Drew, David


Blackman, Liz
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blizzard, Bob
Edwards Huw


Borrow, David
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradshaw, Ben
Ennis, Jeff


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Buck, Ms Karen
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard

Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Galloway George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gerrard, Neil


Cann, Jamie
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caplin, Ivor
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caton, Martin
Goggins, Paul


Cawsey, Ian
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hain, Peter


Clelland, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clwyd, Ann
Hanson, David


Coaker, Vernon
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coffey, Ms Ann
Healey, John


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Colman, Tony
Hendrick, Mark


Connarty, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heppell, John


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hill, Keith





Hoey, Kate
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, Bill


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Lindsay
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pearson, Ian


Hume, John
Perham, Ms Linda


Hurst, Alan
Pickthall, Colin


Hutton, John
Pike, Peter L


Iddon, Dr Brian
Plaskitt, James


Illsley, Eric
Pollard, Kerry


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pond, Chris


Jamieson, David
Pope, Greg


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Joyce, Eric
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Keeble, Ms Sally



Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kemp, Fraser
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Khabra, Piara S
Rowlands, Ted


Kidney, David
Ruane, Chris


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Ruddock, Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lammy, David
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Savidge, Malcolm


Laxton, Bob
Sedgemore, Brian


Lepper, David
Shaw, Jonathan


Leslie, Christopher
Shipley, Ms Debra


Levitt, Tom
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Singh, Marsha


Unton, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Lock, David
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter


Macdonald, Calum
Soley, Clive


McDonnell, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


McFall, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


McIsaac, Shona
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


MacShane, Denis
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McWalter, Tony
Stinchcombe, Paul


McWilliam, John
Stringer, Graham


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mallaber, Judy
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Martlew, Eric
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Maxton, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Merron, Gillian
Timms, Stephen


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Todd, Mark


Miller, Andrew
Touhig, Don


Mitchell, Austin
Trickett, Jon


Moffatt, Laura
Truswell, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Morley, Elliot
Wareing, Robert N


Mountford, Kali
Watts, David


Mudie, George
White, Brian


Mullin, Chris
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)







Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Woolas, Phil


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Wills, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Graham Allen and


Wood, Mike
Mr. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order. No. 118(6) (Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation),

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 21st December, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 4.

Division No. 78]
[9.37 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chaytor, David


Ainger, Nick
Chidgey, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Allan, Richard
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)



Clelland, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clwyd, Ann


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coaker, Vernon


Ashton, Joe
Coftey, Ms Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cohen, Harry


Atkins, Charlotte
Coleman, Iain


Bailey, Adrian
Colman, Tony


Ballard, Jackie
Connarty, Michael


Banks, Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bayley, Hugh
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beard, Nigel
Corston, Jean


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cotter, Brian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cranston, Ross


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Crausby, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cummings, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Benton, Joe



Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Berry, Roger
Dalyell, Tam


Betts, Clive
Darvill, Keith


Blackman, Liz
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davidson, Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Borrow, David
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Denham, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Dismore, Andrew


Brand, Dr Peter
Dobbin, Jim


Breed, Colin
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Doran, Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Drew, David


Burnett, John
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burstow, Paul
Efford, Clive


Butler, Mrs Christine
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Fitzpatrick, Jim



Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Don (Bath)


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cawsey, Ian
Galloway, George





Gapes, Mike
Mackinlay, Andrew


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Gerrard, Neil
MacShane, Denis


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gidley, Sandra
McWalter, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWilliam, John


Goggins, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grogan, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hain, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hanson, David
Merron, Gillian


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mitchell, Austin


Hendrick, Mark
Moffatt, Laura


Hepburn, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heppell, John
Moore, Michael


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoey, Kate
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howells, Dr Kim
Moriey, Elliot


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mullin, Chris


Hume, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hutton, John
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Illsley, Eric
Oaten, Mark


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Perham, Ms Linda


Joyce, Eric
Pickthall, Colin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pike, Peter L


Keeble, Ms Sally
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pollard, Kerry


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pond, Chris


Keetch, Paul
Pope, Greg


Kemp, Fraser
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Khabra, Piara S
Primarolo, Dawn


Kidney, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Raynsford, Nick


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rendel, David


Lammy, David
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie



Laxton, Bob
Rogers, Allan


Lepper, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Levitt, Tom
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ruane, Chris


Linton, Martin
Ruddock, Joan


Livsey, Richard
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lock, David
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Love, Andrew
Sanders, Adrian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sarwar, Mohammad


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Savidge, Malcolm


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan


McCrea, Dr William
Shipley, Ms Debra


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonnell, John
Singh, Marsha


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)






Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Todd, Mark


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Touhig, Don


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Snape, Peter
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Soley, Clive
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Tyler, Paul


Squire, Ms Rachel

Wareing, Robert N


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Watts, David


Steinberg, Gerry
White, Brian


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wicks, Malcolm


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Stringer, Graham
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stuart, Ms Gisela



Stunell, Andrew
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Willis, Phil



Wills, Michael


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wood, Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)



Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Mike Hall and


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Graham Allen.


NOES


Leigh, Edward



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Eric Forth and


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport yesterday afternoon replied to a question about the involvement of

the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) in the passport application by Mr. Hinduja. He said that the right hon. Gentleman's sole involvement in the case was to ask his then Parliamentary Private Secretary to speak to the Home Office. It is perfectly clear that that answer was not correct.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport yesterday may have answered that question incorrectly in an inadvertent manner because of the advice that he had received. Have you, Mr. Speaker, received any request from the right hon. Gentleman for a parliamentary opportunity to set the record straight? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received no such request, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will have noted what the hon. Gentleman had to say.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation),

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 21 December, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.

LEGAL SERVICES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Access to Justice Act 1999 (Bar Practising Certificates) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 12 December, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Sittings in Westminster Hall

Mr. Eric Forth: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to object to the motion?

Mr. Forth: No, I would like a wee debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.
I am delighted that the House is so enthusiastic to discuss the motion, and I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is keen to discuss these issues. They are important.
The House has had the opportunity to discuss the establishment of Westminster Hall. I know that there are different views in the House about its value, but this motion is not about Westminster Hall, but about the senior Members who should chair its proceedings. On 20 November, the House agreed that the Westminster Hall experiment should continue.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It would greatly assist the House if the Minister could tell us how the names of the additional Deputy Speakers, who will be appointed if the motion is carried, were arrived at. I am not suggesting that they would be not be suitable, but I would like to know how the names were arrived at.

Mr. Tipping: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, I will come to that point.
The motion will ensure that the three current Deputy Speakers are not overburdened and overworked. The Modernisation Committee considered the issue and it came to the conclusion that extra help and support was needed to chair the important sittings in Westminster Hall. The House is being asked to decide who the new Deputy Speakers should be, and the Modernisation Committee recommended—the House has endorsed this—that the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel should be appointed. Those four members of the panel have given their consent and their names are set out in the motion that the House is being asked to approve.
I know that there is anxiety in the House about the term "Deputy Speaker". My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has raised the point before that there might be confusion between the traditional Deputy Speakers, who keep control in the Chamber, and the Deputy Speakers in Westminster Hall. It is an experimental matter and the House will wish to return to it when we have another opportunity to debate it and either extend the experiment or make it permanent. I commend the motion to the House. I am pleased to say that I believe that the four Members referred to in it will do an excellent job for us all.

Mrs. Angela Browning: The Minister will know that I have only recently had the dubious pleasure of being seconded to the Modernisation Committee, so will he clarify one point? Of course, I have no objection to the four eminent names on the Order Paper and would not wish to challenge their suitability for the posts. However, all four of them already chair sittings in Westminster Hall, se what is the point of making them Deputy Speakers rather than Chairmen? I understand that they already discharge these duties.

Mr. Eric Forth: Given what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has just said, it now appears that we are involved in a parliamentary mystery. The motion has been on the Order Paper for some time and the Government have not given the House an opportunity to debate it properly. The opportunity for debate has arisen only as a matter of happenstance; it was not the wish of the Government. As my hon. Friend asked, what is the point of the motion anyway? If these Members already chair the God-forsaken Westminster Hall, what is the point of the motion? That is the first little mystery for the Minister to clear up.
I am much more worried about political correctness which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, absorbs me for most of my waking hours. When I look at the motion, I am very worried about the image that Westminster Hall will have if its sittings an: chaired by middle-aged white men who have spent a long, long time at Westminster. I suspect that you, Mr. Speaker, may have a little streak of political correctness, and no doubt would agree that, in this modern world, we expect gender balance, regional balance and, probably, a bit of ethnic balance.

Mr. Hogg: The complaint goes wider because the list comprises one Conservative Member, three Labour Members and no Liberal Democrat Member. Is that really the balance that we want to achieve?

Mr. Forth: I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has pressed me on the matter of balance, because that is the theme of my initial remarks. Let us consider the composition of the Chairmen's Panel, which provides the raw material—if I can put it like that—of those hon. Members who are condemned to serve in Westminster Hall. Out of 27 members of the Chairmen's Panel, 15 are Labour Members, 9 are Conservative Members, two are Liberal Democrats and one is from the Scottish National party. On the basis of that, one wonders whether the motion provides the right proportions. I query the party balance and I am surd wised that the Liberal Democrats are not outraged at the fact that neither of their representatives is having a look in.

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are not outraged because they are, after all, but part of the Labour party and are quite happy to have their interests represented by the three Labour nominees.

Mr. Forth: I was just coming to that point, but let us leave the Liberal Democrats where they belong—


in obscurity—and concentrate instead on gender and ethnicity. One looks at the motion in vain for any gender balance or ethnic representation.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We are appointing eminent people because of seniority. Are we moving to a congressional system, in which a person becomes a Deputy Speaker or a Chairman of a Committee just because of seniority? That would be an important and novel departure for the House. I am not opposed to the seniority rule because it makes Chairmen independent of the Executive. However, that serious issue needs to be addressed.

Mr. Forth: I must admit that I have a conflict of interest. As each general election rolls by and I am triumphantly re-elected, seniority starts to take on a certain appeal. Therefore, I am reluctant to comment on what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. John Bercow: Why is neither my right hon. and learned Friend the M ember for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) nor my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) deemed suitable as nominees?

Mr. Forth: I do not know the answer to that. However, I can say with some confidence that the women of this country will be outraged at the motion. I can just imagine that when women up and down the country hear about it and reflect on all the claims that the Government make about gender this and inclusiveness that, they will realise that they have the gall to introduce—

Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I am in full flight, but I shall give way in a minute.
When women realise that the Government have introduced this motion, there will be a scandal throughout the length and breadth of the country.

Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an even greater scandal, because there are 100 female Members on the Labour Benches, any one of whom would be deemed suitable?

Mr. Forth: I doubt the latter part of what my right hon. and learned Friend says. However, we shall come on to that in a moment.
I want to put another worry on the record before I conclude my preliminary remarks. Three of the nominees are from English constituencies and one is from a Welsh constituency, but no one from north of the border is on the list. In spite of devolution, it is difficult to justify such a motion, in which the hon. Members mentioned come overwhelmingly—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Allen.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 31st January, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall—

(i) put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to Police Grant Reports (England and Wales) not later than Seven o'clock; and
(ii) put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Prescott relating to Local Government (Finance) not later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Allen.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PROCEDURE COMMITTEE

Motion made,
That Mr. Barry Gardiner be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. David Lammy be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Allen.]

Hon. Members: Object.

EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Motion made,

That Dr. Nick Palmer be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Mark Hendrick be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE

Motion made,

That Mr. Stephen Hepburn be discharged from the Administration Committee, and Caroline Flint be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Football Transfers

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]

Mr. Jim Murphy: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important issue of the proposed abolition of football transfer fees by the European Commission. I have an interest in the matter, but not a registerable interest in the strictest sense: I am the parliamentary spokesman for the Scottish Professional Footballers Association. It is an unpaid post, but I am happy to perform the role of adviser on behalf of the SPFA.
That organisation north of the border and the equivalent in England, under the stewardship of Gordon Taylor, have played an important role in the debate and have been vocal on behalf of the football players and, in some respects, the football clubs.
I do not have a professional football club, or even a part-time football club, in my constituency. I take a keen interest in football, but in my constituency I have only two junior clubs—Arthurlie Juniors and Neilston Juniors—so I have no registerable interest or a local constituency football team to speak of in professional terms.
Like me, many football fans throughout the country who support large teams and small teams are extremely concerned that major aspects of our national game may be under threat. Of course, the past few years have been a period of change in football. Much of the change has been good, but some of it has been very dangerous.
If the European Commission makes the proposed changes unconditionally, without listening to the voices of the players, clubs and supporters, I fear for the future of many of our football clubs. Already, more than a quarter of the players in the Scottish premier league are from outside Scotland, and the number continues to increase. To some extent, that change has enriched the game, but it has also undermined much of the indigenous talent.
There have also been changes in terms of salaries. The average income of players in the English premiership is £400,000 a year. Many earn a lot more, and some earn much less, but I am informed that the average salary is about £400,000 a year.
As a consequence of the changes that have taken place, we have four leagues both in Scotland and in England. In Scotland, we have the Scottish premier league and the three other divisions. In England, we have the premiership and the three divisions below that.
Those are the four official divisions, but clubs could be categorised in a different way: first, those that are extremely rich; secondly, those that are prosperous; thirdly, those that are struggling to get by; and fourthly, those that are impoverished in both football and financial terms.
It is remarkable that such a situation exists in a country where football is our national sport, and in a nation where countless column inches are devoted to the world of football and the latest intricacies of a player's injury, cold or mood that day, and where football players internet sites receive tens of thousands of hits every day.
As a nation we are obsessed by football, yet we allow such enormous inequalities to permeate our national game. If that took place in society as a whole, the Government would be rightly punished and there would be a demand for firm and convincing action, but in the world of football it is unfortunately tolerated.
Several people and organisations deserve the blame or the responsibility—perhaps some would say the acclaim—for that condition. I do not lay the blame at the footballing feet of the current Minister for Sport or, indeed, those of the Prime Minister; it involves cultural and financial developments and a shift in power. Perhaps the condition has always existed, but it has become more acute. If we are not careful, it will become much worse in the years ahead.
Perhaps the European Commission can abolish transfer fees unconditionally and without compromise, but the first stage will involve abolishing transfer fees across national borders—so Forfar could still sell players to Rangers, and Bournemouth could sell them to Manchester United. That would still be a realistic proposition, but no one who knows anything about football truly believes that, if the European Commissions makes that alteration, the change will not quickly take place in the United Kingdom. As with Bosman, there will be court action. It will take only one court action to ensure that transfer fees will be swept away not only across European boundaries, but within domestic boundaries, and the lifeline for many clubs will be pulled away.
A minority of clubs have sufficient revenue, but the gate receipts are insufficient for the vast majority in all the leagues throughout the United Kingdom. Some clubs survive on very low attendances. Their merchandising is limited, as is their use of the worldwide web, unlike some larger clubs. The television money is concentrated, in any meaningful sense, in t he hands of a minority of clubs. The once-in-a-decade hope of drawing a big club in an FA cup or a Scottish cup competition is but a dream except for a fortunate few.
The transfer fee system offers those clubs a lifeline. Every few years they sell, perhaps reluctantly, some of their best or young and developing talent simply to pay the bills involved in stadium modernisation, to pay their players' salaries, to meet other overheads or perhaps to dedicate the money to youth development—an important issue. Nevertheless, that lifeline could be taken away and all those opportunities and funding chances could be lost.
In the central belt of Scotland, teams such as Falkirk, Airdrie and Hamilton have all struggled to survive recently. A Scottish local town football team was in difficulty and crying out for change and support, so it adopted a political platform to ensure that its voice was heard during a by-election. I do not want to make too many predictions, bet I dare say that that will become commonplace in England as well. Hamilton football club, with an average attendance of 400 or 500, got four times that number of votes in the Hamilton by-election, beating the Liberal Democrats into fifth place.

Mr. Bob Russell: I was supporting the hon. Gentleman until then.

Mr. Murphy: Perhaps clubs will beat other parties, such as the Conservative party, into fourth or fifth place at by-elections in other constituencies. Clubs such as


Morton and Clydebank are homeless without funds and have an uncertain future. They may not even survive this season. The transfer fee system probably will not help them this season, but if their records and those of many other clubs now in difficulty are examined, it is obvious that one of the few things that has kept them alive was their ability to sell on some talent to the larger or neighbouring clubs. That ability will end.
Tomorrow evening, Dumbarton football club will open a new stadium. It will do so not because of a great cascade of wealth downwards in the game, but largely because of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). I pay tribute to him for finding that money through the Football Trust and other sources. However, five or six clubs face real difficulties, and that number will multiply enormously if we are not careful and if we allow the European Commission to amend the rules unconditionally.
I say without a trace of joy or satisfaction, but with a feeling of terror for many clubs, that if the European Commission continues on its current path without compromise, it is conservatively put that perhaps a quarter of Scotland's clubs—10 clubs—and perhaps an equivalent fraction in England would go bankrupt or, if they were professional, go part-time. A quarter of our clubs would disappear from our leagues simply as a result of the European Commission making that change; I predict that that would happen within five years.
That is not the only problem with the proposed changes. The area that has not been talked about enough, and perhaps the greatest danger not only to our club system but to our national teams, is the fact that the abolition of transfer fees without age thresholds will undermine our national game by reducing our ability to grow our own domestic or indigenous talent. I suspect that the youth academies that are springing up in England as a condition of membership of the premiership, and I believe of the first division, would fade away. Where is the incentive to grow one's own talent when there is no transfer fee attached to that talent if it then moves on? Why not simply wait and buy the pre-prepared article—the fully developed player—without donating millions of pounds to a youth academy?
The Scottish clubs have been much slower. Some have begun to put together youth academies, but if they have not set up a production line to grow their own talent under a system of transfer fees, why would they ever do it? What sense would it make to introduce youth academies and football learning academies when there is no transfer fee at the end of it if, after four or five years, that youth moves on free of charge?
If we allow that system to develop, our national teams will no longer pick their teams from among the top domestic leagues; perhaps they already do not. The Scotland manager Craig Brown is doing an excellent job, but he would be forced to pick players from the bottom end of the English premiership and tie bottom end of the Scottish premier league. Teams that are struggling against relegation would sometimes provide the core of the Scottish national football team. I fear that there would be a similar situation in England, where the coach would import players from the lower leagues at the bottom end of the English premiership.
We must introduce a threshold whereby clubs receive a transfer fee or substantial financial compensation for losing players, perhaps under the age of 23. There can be

a debate about the exact threshold, but there must be a threshold, so that the club is rewarded for investing in its future and the future of young talent in and around its area.
Some foreign imports have contributed greatly to our national game, but unfortunately too many of them are mediocre players, in what is often now a mediocre league. The Scottish football league is not, colloquially, the Scots believe, something to be proud of. It is made up of at least three or four divisions. There are two teams at the top. Fortunately for me, they have started to take it in turns to win the league, but for a period one team used to win the league. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s it was one half of Glasgow, and throughout the 1980s and 1990s it was the other half. That is unhealthy. I fear that a similar situation is developing in the English premiership, with Manchester United winning more often than not. The national teams will be undermined enormously.
Let us look ahead to the footballing environment that we shall have in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe if transfer fees are abolished. Forty years ago, the idea that a football player would command a transfer fee of £1 million would have seemed crazy. Only five or six years ago, the idea that a player would now regularly command an annual salary of £1 million would have seemed absurd. If there is increasing individualisation and a breakdown of team spirit, with very few superstars moving between clubs, we shall be in a very difficult situation.
The abolition of transfer fees will work to the benefit of a very few star players who, I fear—this may be controversial—will move from team to team throughout the season. They will team up with their agent—who will make huge amounts of cash even though transfer fees have been abolished—and their sponsor, and shop around. They will shop around and European stars who, perhaps, are coming to the end of their careers, will sign for one or two weeks in big city clubs, get a share of merchandising and the television deal and then move on. That is not healthy. In future, we will see a period when individual stars will copyright their own names, images and everything about themselves so that they can attract even more funding.
As parliamentary spokesman for the players' union in Scotland, surely I should welcome players becoming more prosperous. However, prosperity will be in the hands of the few, not the many. The majority of football players will have short-term contracts, if any at all. Teams will have no transfer fees and clubs will know that those players will command nothing, so there is no reason at all to tie them into the system.
To wind up, some of those trends already exist and many of them are, perhaps, unstoppable. However, the proposed unconditional, uncompromising change by the European Commission will hasten the downfall of many of our clubs. If we think of the rich heritage across our continent, the famous and historic matches and brilliant individual flair and skill, and, in years to come, ask our own children which football player contributed most to European football and had the greatest lasting effect on our national game and the European game, sadly, the answer will be a gentleman called Bosman—not the great Platini or any other player. If we do not see meaningful change at this late hour in the European Commission's proposal, Bosman II will run him close as the second best known football player ever to play on our continent.

The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) on securing a debate on the European Commission's present review of the football transfer system? I feel that the players' union in Scotland is very lucky indeed to have such a fine spokesman in the House. He has shown his deep concern for football from top to bottom and has represented strongly the views of many people in the country.
The debate is of great interest. It has also been of great interest in Scotland, as my hon. Friend is aware; the Scottish Parliament itself has taken up the issue, which concerns everyone in football and all of those with an interest in its well-being. It is an issue of some complexity and, partly because of that, recent press comment has created a rather misleading impression of the progress of negotiations and, indeed, the Government's role in the matter. I am happy to set out the present position and discuss the Government's aims for the future of the transfer system and the steps that we are taking with football to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
First, we must consider the reasons for the Commission's present review, which is a prerequisite for any informed discussion of the issue. It has been said that the Commission seeks nothing less than the destruction of the transfer system. The Government's understanding is that that is not the case. The Commission is legally obliged to investigate complaints made to it. In this case, the present review is a result of a complaint made to it some time ago by a Belgian trade union against FIFA's transfer regulations and of complaints from two clubs in the European Union.
One complaint held that the present regulations restrict competition in the football market by concentrating sporting power in the hands of a small number of clubs that can afford inflated transfer fees for top players. It can be argued that the grounds of that concern are doubtful in the light of football's present economic structure. Player salaries may be thought to be more relevant. Whatever the merits, the Commission has raised legitimate concerns, including the possible effects of the remaining restrictions on players' freedom of movement following the important Bosman ruling.
Following the Commission's statement of objections in 1998, FIFA was asked to make proposals for revising the regulations to address the concerns that arose from the original complaint. However, it took rather a long time to do that. The Commission is proceeding under an established administrative procedure and, to the Government's knowledge, its agenda is no wider than that. I should add that the Commission is currently considering only international transfer regulations—player moves between European Economic Area countries. However, as my hon. Friend said, it is possible, but by no means certain, that domestic transfer systems would have to be revised to reflect any reform of international regulations, as happened after the Bosman ruling. Whatever form it takes, reform of the transfer system will come from football itself. The Commission's role is to ensure that any new framework is compatible with European Union law and capable of withstanding any subsequent legal challenges.
There have been calls recently for the Government to attempt to influence the negotiations by pursuing the matter with the Governments of other member states or

by some unspecified means. That is very understandable because the legal process in the European Union is often cumbersome and unexciting. However, it is important to realise that there are no easy answers in the matter and there are limits to what may reasonably be achieved. Having said that, the Government have been active throughout not only in helping football to achieve a solution, but in seeking to mobilise support in other European Union countries for the beneficial aspects of the current system and of football's reform proposals.
Given the importance of football in our sporting culture, it is natural that the Government should have our own views on the future of the transfer system. We wish to see a framework that continues to support the smaller clubs which encourage the development of young players, promotes competition between clubs and affords stability to the sport. The Prime Minister has made that clear on a number of occasions, particularly in a very important joint statement in September with the German Chancellor. However, that does m t mean that we seek to defend every aspect of the current system, because the system has weaknesses.
The current framework does indeed perform a role in supporting smaller clubs. It also encourages them to develop talent. However, that support and encouragement are both limited and arbitrary. They are limited as the amounts paid by the premier league to football league clubs are greatly exceeded by the amounts that the premier league clubs pay to each other and by the amounts paid for overseas players. Additionally, much of the trickle-down effect is offset by transfer money going back from the football league to the premier league.
The support and encouragement are arbitrary as the benefits derived by smaller clubs are neither targeted at need nor reflect the true costs of developing young players. When Les Ferdinand joined Tottenham Hotspur from Newcastle United, in 1997, his first club, Hayes—I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) in the Chamber—received £800,000 under a sell-on clause. Hayes did well and invested its wind 'all in a new stadium. However, that example is not typical. Many struggling clubs receive next to nothing for players whom they have developed. We would like to see a system in which clubs are fairly recompensed for identifying and bringing on talent.
I am glad to say that the football authorities themselves recognise that the current system is not perfect. However, the sport recognises as we do that the current transfer framework is the best known means of achieving the benefits that we seek.
The Government are therefore helping football to work towards a new system that will be acceptable to the Commission while retaining the beneficial effects of the current arrangements. Under the proposals put to the Commission by the joint FIFA-UEFA task force, on 31 October, clubs developing players will be guaranteed a fair level of recompense for losing promising talent.
Support for smaller clubs, however, forms only one part of the negotiations. Many observers are more concerned by the suggestion that players should be able to break contracts if their teams are relegated, if they are not selected for matches or if they disagree on tactics. That proposal came from FIFA, but has now been withdrawn. The Government share football's concern about the possible effects of that proposal on the stability of domestic and international competitions.
We have made plain our concerns to football, but it is right that all sports should run themselves and it is for the football authorities to reform their transfer system. The Government's proper role is to help that process and to ensure that the interests of all part; of the sport are fully considered by the sport's international governing bodies and by the Commission.
To that end, we have had three roles in the negotiations. First, through the United Kingdom football authorities we have actively encouraged the FIFA-UEFA working group to come up with sensible proposals that meet some of the Commission's concerns while achieving a solution that meets the needs of the whole sport It is well known that the international governing bodies were for a time unable to agree a common approach. After a couple of weeks of uncertainty, the Commission is once again discussing the 31 October proposals with the taskforce, starting with a meeting tomorrow. The Government are receiving regular reports of the progress of the negotiations, and we shall continue to offer every possible assistance through our national football authorities.
Secondly, we have sought to encourage football to speak with one voice. The Football Association and the premier league are taking the lead in negotiations. The Scottish FA has been kept fully info med of developments and is represented at the regular UEFA Euro leagues meeting. My Department has also remained in close touch with the other devolved Administrations on the issue.
Thirdly, we have tried to ensure that the Commission acknowledges the special characteristics of sport. That was the aim of the declaration on sport, which the Government fully supported, at the Nice summit. The declaration expressed the belief of European Union states that sport is different from other industries, and that the Commission should take account of that, not least when considering the transfer issue. The Nice declaration included a specific paragraph on that issue. That shows how seriously Governments in the European Union are taking the issue. We are confident that the Commission has taken account of that message as negotiations have continued.
We have remained close to the issue, and have offered every assistance to football when appropriate and potentially productive. UEFA and FIFA will pick up the negotiations with the Commission again, and I believe that there are grounds for cautious optimism.
It is entirely possible that we will and up with a transfer system that, although rather different from the present arrangements, has some significant advantages over current practice.

Mr. Bob Russell: In view of the serious points that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) made in his powerful speech, would the Government intervene if there was a possibility of smaller clubs going to the wall?

Kate Hoey: The Government already intervene—in a way in which a Government who do not run the sport can do that. We are being as supportive and helpful as possible. We are also working with our European partners, who share our anxiety. Their football bodies have different views, but most agree that the Commission's initial proposals were not acceptable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood and other hon. Members will remember the anxieties about the Bosman ruling. Contrary to fears expressed at the time, it did not destroy football. Although the ruling appears to have helped to usher in the present wage spiral for top footballers, much of that is down to the huge amounts of television money. The inflationary transfer market has been encouraged by agents who stand to make vast amounts of money from television. The football governing bodies pay great attention to the Commission's actions, but they and FIFA must do more to stop the clear abuses of the system by agents. All the factors that I have mentioned combine to shift the power in football from the grass roots upwards, as my hon. Friend said.
The ability to change clubs without a fee when out of contract, which the Bosman ruling granted, has sometimes been to the advantage of many players. Stuart Pearce's current renaissance at West Ham is arguably a demonstration of that. A fee may well have dissuaded his new club from rescuing him from Newcastle United's reserve team.
We hope that the Commission's review will have a satisfactory outcome, and that the flexibility that football has long shown will enable it to adapt to any new conditions. I can assure hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood, that the Government will continue to help football to work towards a successful conclusion to the present negotiations.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the House's attention. It is clear that hon. Members from all parties believe that, whatever the ultimate system, it must protect the small clubs, safeguard talent and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, encourage home-grown talent. That is the future of our football.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.